Skip to main content

Full text of "Annual report"

See other formats


CLOSeo 
STACKS 




SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



GOVERNMENT INFORMATION CENTER 
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 



HUH 



doc; e ttment 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 90187 9388 



ANNUAL REPORT 



PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 
OF SAN FRANCISCO 



JULY 1, 1968 TO JUNE 30, 1969 



EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER documents dept. 



$ ' r T T i o 



1981 




*** T&« 



Justice — The highest of the Four Cardinal Virtues 



The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 33 of the Charter 
of the City and County of San Francisco, which reads as follows: 

"Section 33: . . . He shall immediately, upon the request of a defendant who is 
financially unable to employ counsel, or upon order of the court, defend or give 
counsel or advice to any person charged with the commission of a crime." 



. ibrary; 



35"=?, 1 






City and County of San Francisco 



WARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 



Public Defender 

Hall of Justice 
850 BRYANT STREET. ROOM 205 
San Francisco. California 94103 



KLONDIKE 3-1671 



September, 1969 



SUBJECT: Annual Report for fiscal year ending June 30, 1969 



I am enclosing a copy of the Annual Report of the Fublic 
Defender's Office of the City and County of San Francisco, for 
the fiscal year ending June 30* 1969. 

The report reveals a continuing increase in the number 
of the Defendants the Public Defender is being called upon to 
represent. An example is the 36$ rise in the number of Felony 
Preliminary Hearing cases. A total of 3^*920 Defendants were 
represented at a cost of $12.79 per Defendant. This low cost 
is due net only to an economical and efficient operation but is 
a tribute to the dedicated personnel in the Public Defender's 
Office. However, the Office Ls vastly understaffed, and addi- 
tional personnel is desperately needed if minimum standards of 
legal representation are to be maintained. 

An interesting facet to the operation of the Public De- 
fender's Office during the last year was the appointment of the 
Public Defender to handle the defense of approximately i+50 De- 
fendants, primarily students, resulting from a mass arrest on 
the campus of San Francisco State College. This indicated that 
approximately LlO jury trials would be added to our increasing 
case load. Because of prior planning in the area of civil dis- 
orders and mass arrests, the Public Defender, with the aid of 
volunteer attorneys, has been able to represent these Defend- 
ants at no additional cost to the City and County of San Fran- 
cisco, thereby saving thousands of dollars for the taxpayers, 
which otherwise would have been expended to compensate court 
appointed counsel. 



/*» 




Very truly yours, 





— ^ 



EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
Public Defender 



ETM:pm 



JURISDICTION 

The Public Defender's office in San Francisco was establish- 
ed October 15, 1921. 

The office operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the 
City and County of San Francisco which was adopted in 1932. 

We also are governed by Section 27706 and related sections 
of the Government Code of the State of California; Sections 633, 
634, 658, 659 and 700 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, 
together with Section .4852. 01 to 4852.2 of the PenalJ^ocLe*.^ ,1._1_ 

Our jurisdiction covers in excess of a million people, 
which includes those from the Peninsula and the Bay Area who 
visit San Francisco daily. 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and responsibil- 
ity is to see that each defendant is granted a fair and impartial 
trial; that all. of his constitutional rights are preserved; that 
the innocent are not found guilty; that every possible defense 
is presented; that investigation is made to ascertain if any 
mitigating circumstances exist; and, general 1 y, to see that each 
defendant receives every protection of the law to which he is 
justly entitled, under our Federal and State constitutions. 

Part of our duties are to handle applications for persons 
who seek a pardon and restoration of civil rights by filing 
certificates of rehabilitation when released from the State prison, 
as set forth in Section 4852.01 to 4852.2 of the Penal Code. 

The office also is handling an increasing number 
of requests for the sealing and expungement of criminal records. 
iDuring the past fiscal year, 338 sealings and expungements were 
processed. f 

[ CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL LAWS 

The provisions of the California Constitution and the Gen- 
eral Laws of the State of Cal ifornia, as wel 1 as the Charter of 
the City and County of San Francisco, relating to the protections 

^afforded those accused of crime, are not inconsistent with the 

[provisions of the United States Constitution. 

Recent decisions of the Federal and State Appel late Courts 
in particular the United States Supreme Court, are making the 
[constitutional right to counsel real and effective in both Fed- 
leral and State Courts. 

The effect of these decisions is that the constitutional 
right to counsel is present at every cricial stage of , the pro- 
ceeding and is available to the indigent as well as those 






financially able to afford counsel. Because of these decisions 
and our society's stress on individual rights, new and adequately 
staffed Public Defender offices zre being established throughout 
the Nation. Existing Public Defender offices have had their 
staff considerably increased so as to be able to adequately and 
effectively represent those entitled to their services to furnish 
representation as set forth by the decisions. 

Among the recent landmark cases which indicate that the 
constitutional right is broad enough to require counsel at virtual- 
ly every stage of criminal proceedings for both adults and juve- 
ni les are: 

Gideon v. Wainwright ( 1963) 372 U.S. 335 
hscobedo v. I I iinoi"s (1964) 378 U.S. 478 
People v. Dorado ( 1965) 42 Cal.Rptr. 169. 

Certiorari denied by U. S. Supreme Court 

33 USL Week 3389 
Mira nda v . Arizona (I966) 34 U. S. Law Week 4521 
In re Gault ( 196/) 35 U. S. Law Week 4399 

The Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants 
of the American Bar Association recently stressed the fact that: 

"failure to provide equal justice discriminates 
against citizens who are poor, deprives them of 
historic rights guaranteed all citizens, jeopar- 
dizes all our governmental system and the rule 
of law itself, foments disregard and order and 
thus directly contributes to the disorder pre- 
vailing today in our society." 

- PERSONAL CONTACT FOR OUR SERVICES 

During the period covered by this report, a total of 
3,340 applications were made by defendants OR ' d or on bail to 
our office for our services. Of this number, 282 were referred 
to a legal panel of attorneys who have agreed to handle the 
defense of criminal cases at a reasonable fee; or the applicants 
were denied our services outright . 

MISDEMEANOR CASES HANDLED IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

Experience has shown that there is a greater possibility 
of a miscarriage of justice at the misdemeanor level than in 
situations involving the commission of a felony. This is due, 
in part, to the fact that before a trial and conviction or ac- 
quittal in a felony case there must have been a preliminary screen- 
ing of the evidence before a Grand Jury or a Committing Magistrate. 

The constant presence in the Municipal Court of a Deputy 
Public Defender greatly decreases the possibility of any mis- 
carriage of justice, and aids in the speedy and equitable dis- 
position of many%cases. 

-2- 



Today the judges of the Municipal and Traffic Courts feel 
that it is absolutely necessary that a Public Defender be avail- 
able at all times while the court is in session to assist in the 
expediting of the. court, cal endar and to be available for appoint- 
ment when necessary. . 

JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS 

With the recent U. S. Supreme Court Gault decision, up- 
holding the right of juvenile defendants to due process, the 
Public Defenders office in San Francisco is anticipating more 
demands upon their time to represent juveniles before the Juvenile 
Court in the coming year. (The Gault decision.) 

Si nee. April 5, 1968, the Juvenile Court has been serviced 
by four "attorneys .from the Legal Aid Society of San Francisco,., 
made possible by a grant from the'Office of Economic Opportunity. 
Pursuant to an urgent request from the Juvenile Court Judge, it 
was necessary to again assign a deputy Public Defender ful 1 time, 
to the Juvenile Court. 

This /has aggravated an already strained situation at the - 
Hall of Justice because of lack of sufficient, personnel . 

In the event the Public Defender is again called upon to 
service all the departments of the Juvenile Court, it will be 
necessary that four additional attorneys be provided to the 
Publ ic Defender in order to perform this function. ~., , .. 

Last year through June, 1969, we appeared on behalf of 
2989 juveniles at the Juveni 1e Court for pre-detent ion hearings 
and represented 90 juveniles in trials. 

When the hew Juvenile court law was enacted in 1961 by 
the terms of Sections 633, 63*f, 658, 659 and 700 of the Welfare 
and Institutions Code, and related sections, the Publ ic Defender, 
in counties where there is a Public Defender, has the duty and 
responsibility to appear on behalf of said juvenile offenders. 

UNIT OF COUNTING , • 

—■■I ■■■■■» ■ ■-»,— ■ ■■■■■■■■ !!■■ .1 ■ 

The unit of counting in our criminal statistics is the 
defendant, rather than the case or charges. If several cases ' 
on one individual are prosecuted during an overlapping time 
period, they are combined. When there are multiple cases or charges, 
a defendant is counted as dismissed or acquitted only if there are 
dismissals or acquittals on all such cases or charges. A defend- 
ant is. counted as convicted when there is a conviction on any one 
of a group of cases or charges, even if the conviction be for an 
uncharged lesser and included offense to any of the charged of- 
fenses. , ' . ■ , ... 

APPEALS AND WRITS 
Although it is the duty of the Public Defender, as set 

.. -3- ■•■•/' 



forth in the Government Code of the State of California, Section 
27706, and also the recent appellate decisions of the State of 
California and the U. S. Supreme Court, to handle appeals and 
special writs on behalf of their clients, the Public Defender's 
office, because of the lack of being properly staffed, has not 
been able to perform these duties* 

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM 

Through the efforts of the Public Defender, the Board of 
Supervisors of the City and County of San. Francisco in i960 ap- 
proved the following ordinance for the establishment of an In- 
ternship Program, in the office of the Public Defender; 

SEC. 16.9-1. Internship for law students and attorneys.. 
The Public Defender is hereby authorized to institute a system of 
internship for duly qualified law students and attorneys of the 
City and County of San Francisco to serve in the office of the 
Public Defender and thereby acquire, experience, in the field of 
criminal law. The said service to be entirel y voluntary and 
under the supervision of the Public .Defender and permanent members 
of the office of the Public Defender. 

Law students and attorneys serving under this system of 
internship shall be designated and shall serve at the pleasure of 
the Public Defender. Each attorney so designated must be qualified 
to practice in all the Courts of the State. 

There shall be no salary, wages, or compensation of any 
kind or nature paid to said law students or attorneys, nor shall 
any such person be eligible to be a member of the retirement 
system of the City and County of San Francisco or have any rights 
thereunder by reason of such service*. 

Since the inauguration of this program many law students 
and practicing attorneys have sery ed under this program. The 
response to the program and the gratifying results experienced 
by those who have served indicate without question that such a 
program is a vital force in aiding in the proper administration 
of criminal justice. ...... 

INVESTIGATION 

Our Investigators' duties are comparable to those of in- 
vestigators employed in any private law office or by the District 
Attorney's office; mainly to locate, interview and secure signed 
statements from witnesses, in addition to making field investiga- 
tions of cases assigned to him by trial deputies. 

In certain cases, it is impossible, without an investigator, 
to ascertain the true facts; whereas, upon investigation, the 
deputy can determine from the data accumulated - regardless of 
whether the information discovered proves unfavorable to the 
accused - the guilt or innocence of the defendant, as well as 
mitigating circumstances. 



MASS ARRETS AT SAN FRAi-iCISCO STATE COLLEGE 

On January 23, 1969, approximately 480 persons were arrested 
on the campus of San Francisco State College, Most of them being 
charged with violations of 408 (unlawful assembly, 409 (failure 
to disperse) and 415 (disturbing the peace) of the California 
Penal Code. 

On January 24, 1969, the Public Defender appeared at arraign- 
ment for most of those charged. All cases were continued one 
week for plea and counsel. 

On January 31, 1969, after motions for continuances were 
denied, pleas of not guilty were entered either voluntarily by 
the defendant or by order of the court. 

The Public Defender had received approximatel y 400 appl ica- 
tions for its services. Of these, approximately half were approved 
for representation by the Public Defender. The other half were 
disapproved, either because it appeared the defendant had suf- 
ficient assets to retain private counsel or because the financial 
status required further investigation. 

However, at the time of plea, the court, on its order, which 
it could legally do, appointed the Public Defender to represent 
all of the defendants, regardless of the fact that the Public 
Defender had determined that many of the defendants were not 
indigent. 

After pleas was entered, the District Attorney requested 
jury trials and the defendants were formed in groups of 10 by 
the court for jury trials. 

The duty and responsibility of representing 450 persons in 
jury trials imposed a tremendous strain on the Public Defender's 
office since it was already vastly Understaffed and carrying the 
largest case load per deputy of any Public Defender office in 
the country. 

Pursuant to discussions had at previous meetings with legal 
organizations of San Francisco called by the Public Defender in 
anticipation of probable mass arrests and civil disorders, the 
Public Defender asked for volunteer attorneys from the various 
legal organizations in San Francisco, including the San Francisco 
Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation. 

The assistance received enabled the Public Defender to defend 
all the cases on jury trials as of June 30, 1969, and HAS RESULTED 
IN A TREMENDOUS SAVINGS TO THE TAXPAYERS OF SAN FRANCISCO WHO 
WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE HAD TO COMPENSATE COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEYS. 

-5- 



In addition to representation at the jury trials, the Public 
Defender was required to have many conferences to discuss diverse 
si tuitions apparent in group representation; must make numerous 
appearances for court settings and sentencing. In addition, the 
Public Defender is handling some necessary appeals and has made 
appearances in legal matters respecting these cases in the U. S. 
F^leral District Court and the California District Court of 
Appeals, attacking the consti tutional ity .of .the arrest of said 
defendants under Section 408, h03 and k\S of the Penal Code. 

It appears at the present time that many defendants who have 
been found guilty are demanding appeals and that our office may 
be called upon to process these appeals. This would require our 
receiving additional help, as we are not set-up at the present 
time, with our present personnel, to give the time and attention 
necessary in order to adequately and successfully process : 
appeals. 



sai d 



As of June 30, I969, there have been 19 jury trials completed. 
Results of the trials reveal that 66 defendants were convicted 
of at least one count; that k~J defendants were found not guilty 
of all counts or dismissed; that 73 defendants entered a plea 
of Nolo Contendre or guilty to one count, arising out of a. program 
worked out by the Public Defender with the Presiding Judge. 

There were 379 jury trialdays during this period. 

There are still approximately 22 jury cases on standby for 
jury trials. With vacation timeupon us, severe i 1 lness, which 
has incapacitated at least one deputy for a considerable period, 
the ever present lack of staff, the future will be a trying one 
for the Public Defenders office in carrying on its usual and 
increasing heavy caseload and in addition provide deputies for 
the jury trials in the State cases. 

NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HELP 

The Public Defenders office in San Francisco has contin- 
uously been understaffed for many years/carrying the heaviest 
caseload per deputy of any Public Defenders office in the nation. 

In our budget request last year, we asked for 5 additional 
attorneys to properly service the k municipal general criminal courts 
in misdemeanor and felony preliminary hearing cases. We also re- 
quested two additional investigators. We requested 3 attorneys for 
the purpose of setting up an Appellate Department in our office. An 
Appellate Department is a vital necessity today. Recently the 
Appellate Department of the Superior Court had to appoint outside 
attorneys to handle appeals on the State Col lege Cases. Their 
fees will be substantial. 

His Honor, Mayor Joseph A 1 i'oto approved 5 additional de- 
puties and deleted the other request. The Board of Supervisors 
only approved two additional deputies, which is insufficient to 
efficiently perform the services we are called upon to render. . 

-6- 



FELONY CASES HANDLED Irl SUPERIOR COURT 

Ccses pending from 1967-68 140 

New cases (many with priors) 2228 

TOTAL ZJUB 

DISPOSITIOM OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 

Defendants plead guilty 1099 

Defendants plead guilty (lesser included offenses) 196 

Defendants found guilty (some lesser offenses) 55 

S Y J ur Y 31 By court 24 

Defendants dismissed 101 

Defendants not guilty by reason of insanity 12 

Defendants found not guilty 8 

By jury 7 By court 1 1471 

OTHER SUPERIOR COURT CASES HANDLED FOR DISPOSITION 

Mentally ill cases 4 

Certified from Municipal Court under 1 368 PC 240 
(Sane 1 40 Insane 89 Private counsel 8 
Miscellaneous 3) 

Certified from Muni Court under Misc. sections 53 

Motions to revoke probation - new case 90 

Motions to modify sentence - new case 17 

Returned from hospital for disposition .. 53 

Returned from Rehabilitation Center 18 



475 



Oi y.ZZ SUPERIOR COURT DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 

Defendants taken over by Private Counsel 201 

(Many because of conflict of interest) 
Defendants failed to appear - Bench warrants 

issued or other miscellaneous reason 78 

Motions to expunge and seal 16 

Rehabilitation and Executive Clemency 7 

Writs - Habeas corpus - Corum nobis l4 

Special appearances on appointment by court 19 

Cases still pending 87 

Not counted as cases : 

Motions to revoke probation - part of case 99 

Motions to modify probation - part of case : 24 

Bench warrants issued as part of case 48 

FINAL DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS 

PLEAD GUILTY - WERE FOUND GUILTY OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED: 

Sentenced to State Prison for term prescribed by law 85 

Sentenced to County Jail 143 
Probation or suspended sentence with county jail time 

(some with fine or restitution) 827 

-7- 



422 



172 

49 

137 

112 


175 

64 


33 


1797 



P robot Ion or suspense d sentence 

(some with fine or restitution) 
Committed to Youth Authority 
Committed to State Hospitals 
Committed to Rehabilitation Center 
Defendants referrc"! to Municipal Court 
Bench warrants issued 
Pending for sentence 

SPECIAL MOTIONS MAOE BY PUBLIC DEFENDER IN SUPERIOR COURT: 

Motions to d-'srniss under 995 PC 306 

Granted 56 Denied 242 Other disposition 8 

Motions to suppress 110 

Motions under 3050-51 WS-I Code 189 

Motions for new trials 29 

Motions to modify bail 16 

Motions under Section 170.6 PC (Challenge Judge) 11 

Motions under Section 1203.3 PC 12 

Motions under various miscellaneous sections 15 

Motions under Section 1 368 PC u 34 

Motions for probation 1132 
Granted 854 Denied 1 30 Other disposition or 

pending 148 

During the year there were 574 charges dismissed that were 
filed against defendants represented. These are not listed as 
dismissed cases by our office . 

During the year there were 107 days devoted to jury trials 
and 48 days to court trials in the Superior Court. 

We handled 35 murder cases in 1 968-69: 

2 were found guilty of first degree 
4 were found guilty of manslaughter 

3 plead guilty to second degree 

2 were found not guilty - insanity 

2 were found not guilty 
1 was hospitalized 

1 was transferred to Juvenile Court 

3 made special appearances for 

8 transferred to Private Counsel 

9 still pending for trial 

The major portion of felony charges handled by the Public De- 
fender fell into the following categories: 

1968-69 

Section 211 Penal Code - Robbery 297 

Section 245 Penal Code - Felonious Assault .* 142 
Section 459 Penal Code - Burglary 375 

-8- 



Section 470 Penal Cede - Forgery 102 

Section 487 Penal Code - Grand Theft 105 

Section 496 Penal Code - Receiving Stolen Property 102 
Section 1 368 Penal Code - Sanity 211 

Section IO85I Vehicle Code - Theft of vehicle 237 
Section 1 1500 H&S 88 

Section 1 1530 H & S 220 

Section 11910 H & S 87 

Other Health ?, Safety Codes - narcotic charges 204 
Other sections 61 3 

A felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment in the State 
Penitentiary, and may include the penalty of death. When the 
crime is also punishable by a fine or ^y imprisonment in a 
county jail, within the discretion of the court, it shall be deem 
ed to be a misdemeanor for all purposes after a judgment has been 
rendered imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the 
State Prison. 

PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ON FELONY CASES IN MUNICIPAL COURT 



1967-68 1968-69 



4202 


5724 


5 188 


6675 


11851 


18253 



Defendants represented 

Charges filed against defendants 

Number of appearances made by deputies 



THERE WAS AM INCREASE OF 36% IN FELONY PRELIMINARY CASES 
HANDLED BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDED IN THE LAST FISCAL YEAR. 



-8A- 



1967-68 


1968-69 


1351 


1605 


424 


680 


1087 


1057 


133 


109 


11 


31 


51 


197 


89 


85 


830 


1586 


25 


3<+ 


30 


37 


109 


175 


69 


109 


23 


18 



OUTCOME OF FELONY PRELIMINARY HEARINGS 



lei d to Answer 

lismissed or Discharged * 

aken over by Private Counsel 

ndicted by Grand Jury 

ertified to Superior Court 

pecial Appearances Made . 

ugitives Appeared for 

harges reduced to Misdemeanors 

eferred to Juvenile Div. (Minors) 

ertified to Superior Court under 1 368 Penal Code 

ailed to Appear - Bench Warrants issued ** 

ending Cases 

ther Dispositions 

* Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants were 
ismissed or discharged, are cases where, after a court hearing, 
he judge found the evidence insufficient to find the defendant 
uilty, and therefore dismissed the charges filed against him. 

** There were many Bench Warrants issued in the felony pre- 
iminary hearing cases which were recalled during the calendar 
ear, and subsequently disposed of. Those Bench Warrants issued 
o not show in these records. 

REDUCED CHARGES - 1586 DEFENDANTS 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the defendant 
nters a plea of guilty at his hearing in the Municipal Court to 
lesser included offense (to wit a misdemeanor.) 

The 1586 defendants that plead guilty to misdemeanors were 
isposed of as follows: 

Sentenced to County Jail 438 
County Jail with Probation (most with fine or 

restitution) 551 

County Jai'1 - 1 day suspended 76 

Probation or suspended sentence (most with fine or 

restitution) 65 
Suspended sentence with Probation (most with fine or 

restitution) 403 

Miscellaneous - Time served 21 

Pending for sentence etc. *+3 

THE CHARGES REDUCED WERE MAINLY AS FOLLOWS: 

U0M TO CASES 

T5TJ0 Health & Safety Code 11 55F H & S Code 303 

3851 Vehicle Code 499B Penal Code 1 76 

'">9 Penal Code 488 Penal Code 154 

3851 Vehicle Code 10852 Vehicle Code 114 

*'0 Penal Code 488 Penal Code 94 

-9- 



REDUCED CHARGES (Continued) 

FROM 

*+tf7 Penal Code 

496 Penal Code 

211 Penal Code 

459 Penal Code 

11910 Health & Safety Code 

459 Penal Code 

245 Penal Code 

LAST YEAR 27'^ PER CENT OF THE FELONY PRELIMINARY HEARINGS 
HANDLED BY OUR OFFICE WERE REDUCED TO MISDEMEANORS AND DISPOSED 
OF IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT. 



TO 


CASES 


48B~Pena1 Code 


77 


483 Penal Code 


55 


488 Penal Code 


49 


10852 Vehicle Code 


42 


1 1556 Health & Safety 


42 


602L Penal Code 


35 , 


242 Penal Code 


29 



ONLY 30 PER CENT. WERE HELD ' TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE REFERRED 
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR DISPOSITION THERE. ,•■ 



APPROXIMATELY 20 PER CENT WERE TAKEN OVER/ BY PRIVATE COUNSEL. 



THERE WERE 236 OR MORE CHARGES DISMISSED AT THE FELONY PRE- 
LIMINARY HEARINGS -- THESE A RE- NOT COUNTED AS CASES DISMISSED IN 
OUR OFFICE. ! i 



JAIL SENTENCES 

OF THE DEFENDANTS WHOSE CHARGES WERE REDUCED AND DISPOSED OF 
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT: 

65 PER CENT WERE SENTENCED TO A COUNTY JAIL SENTENCE,' 35 
PER CENT RECEIVED NO JAIL SENTENCE . 

THOSE SENTENCED TO COUNTY JAIL WERE AS FOLLOWS: 



30 DAYS OR LESS 
60 DAYS OR LESS 
90 DAYS OR LESS 
6 MONTHS OR LESS 
1 YEAR 



448 
248 
142 
181 
11 



OF THE 5,724 DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED - 1065 OR BETTER THAI 
17 + PER CENT RECEIVED NO JAIL SENTENCES WHATEVER. 



-10- 



MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 

' 1968-69 

Defendants represented in Traffic Court 5972 

Charges filed against defendants 13312 

Number of appearances made by deputies 8938 

DISPOSITION OF TRAFFIC CASES 

1968-69 

Defendants plead guilty 2760 

Defendants found guilty 1862 

Defendants dismissed 653 

Defendants found not guilty 250 

Taken over by Private counsel 206 

Special appearance 2 

Motion to revoke probation 39 

Bench warrant issued I38 

Miscellaneous cases 37 

Cases still pending 25 

Total WH- 

DISPOSITI ON OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS EITHER PLEAD GUILTY 
WERE HOUND GUILTY OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED IN TRAFFIC COUTTT 

1968-69 

Committed to County Jail 245 1 

In most of the cases, the defendant was sentenced 
from one to five days to the County Jail, almost 
all with credit for time served. In many of the 
cases, he was given a suspended sentence or prob- 
ation, plus the jail sentence, in addition to a fine. 
Committed to County Jail, 1 day suspended 14 

Fined or Jail Time 81 5 

In many of these cases, the defendant was also given 
a suspended sentence or probation. 
Sentenced to Time Served 98 

Suspended Sentence 97 

Suspended sentence or probation 126 

In many of these cases, the defendant was also fined 
or ordered to make restitution. 
Fine or restitution 526 

Suspended sentence with probation 397 

In many of these cases the defendant was also fined or 
ordered to make restitution. 
Traffic school 309 

In most of the cases where the defendant was dismissed, 
the defendant was sent to traffic school. In many 
cases where the defendant was fined, the defendant was 
also sent to traffic school. 
Pending for sentence ' 2 

Miscellaneous - Bench warrants 1 

-11- 



MAIN CHARGES CITED IN MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS 

1968-69 
Section 647f PC - Drunk in and about an auto • 421 

Section 10852 VC - Tampering with vehicle 299 

Section 12951 VC - Drivers' license, refusal to display 

not in possession 1702 

Section 14601 VC - Driving with suspended or revoked 

1 i cense 602 

Section 20002a VC - Hit run with property damage 280 

Section 21451 VC - Stop and go signals 131 

Section 21453a VC - Failure to obey traffic signals 264 

Section 22101 VC - Marking or signs for turning 550 

Section 22350 VC - Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions 

(use of all prima facie limits 1129 

Section 23102 VC - Driving whi 1e under the influence of 

alcohol (or combined with drug) 524 

Section 23109a VC - Engage in a speed contest -■ 244 

Section 23 1 23 VC - Storage of opened containers - liquor 137 

Parking tag citations 490 

Section 4000VC - Persons who violate or fail to comply 

to code provisions .434 

Section 40508 VC-Failure to appear, after signing 

citation ~ 1873 

Other miscellaneous sections 145 

Bench Warrants 522 

Penal Code Sections 482 

Other Vehicle Code Sections 3246 

During the year, most defendants had two or more violations 
filed against them in traffic cases. In the disposition of the 
cases, better than 50% of the charges filed against defendants 
WERE DISMISSED when pleas were entered to another charge, or the 
defendant was found guilty of one or two of the charges. 

NONE OF THESE DISMISSED CHARGES ARE FILED OR LISTED AS 
CASES BY THIS OFFICE. 

-12- 



DEFENDANTS REPRE SENTED IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1968-69 

Number of defendants represented 14^97 

Charges filed against defendants 201^3 

Number of appearances made by deputies 3325^ 

DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANOR CASES 

' "~ 1968-69 

Defendants plead guilty 6263 

Defendants found guilty 873 

Defendants dismissed or discharged * 267 1 

Defendants found not guilty 2^9 



T0056 



* Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants were 
dismissed or discharged, are cases where, after a court hearing, 
the judge found the evidence insufficient to find the defendant 
guilty, and therefore dismissed the charges filed against him. 

OTHER MISDEMEANOR CASES HANDLED FOR DISPOSITION 

Motions to Revoke Probation - New 212 

Motions to Reduce or Modify Sentences 78 

Certified to Juvenile Court - Minors 5^ 

Certified to Superior Court under 1 368 PC 1^3 

Motions to Expunge or Seal Records - see below , 338 

OTHER MISDEMEANOR DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 

Taken over by Private Counsel 1537 

Special Appearance 527 

Mentally 111 - Hearings ^35 

Warrants Issued ^60 

Cases still pending . 88 

Miscellaneous - Bail Forfeited, etc. 102 



825 



3200 



-13- 



SPECIAL APPEARANCES FOR SEAL IMG £• EXPUNGEMENT OF RECORDS 



Sealing of records under: 
Section 85 1 . 7 PC 
Section 1203.45 PC 

Expungement of records under: 
Section 1 203.4 PC 
Section 1203.4a PC 



1968-6 

45 
77 



TOTAL 



122 

158 
52 



TOTAL 



210 
6 



33; 



Expungement under Section 1772 W & I Code 

GROSS TOTAL 

DISPOSI TION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFEN DANT S EI THER PLEAD 
GUILTY WERE FOUND GUI LTV OR "UTHERWISE. SENTENCED . 

Committed to County Jail . 2517 

Committed to County Jail, one day suspended* 248 

Probation with Jail Time 247 

Fine or Jai 1 Time 317 

Suspended Sentence or Probation 

(some with fine or restitution) 1283 

Probation granted with suspended sentence 

(most with fine or restitution) 2455 

Fine or Restitution 234 

Sentenced to time served 52 

Hospitalized 258 

Committed to Youth Authority 48 

Misc. Disposition and Bench Warrants 156 

* When the Judge imposes a jail sentence with one day suspended 
he thereby maintains control of the sentence imposed upon the 
defendant which can be modified any time thereafter within his 
discretion to either time served or a lesser jail time than 
originally imposed. 

-14- 



Most misdemeanor cases carry penalties of a fine or imprison- 
ment in the County Jail for hot more than 6 months, or both fine 
and imprisonment. 

MISDEMEANOR AiJO TRAF FI C JURY CASES 

When a jury trial is demanded, the case is referred to the 
jury calendar for trial. After a thorough discussion of the case 
with the Deputy Public Defender appointed to represent said client, 
there is almost always a request by the client that the demand for 
the jury trial be waived. 

There were 2457 demands for jury trials in misdemeanor cases 
and 270 jury demands in traffic cases. 50 of this number had 
jury trials. 

THE MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST MISDEMEANANTS HANDLED BY 

THE PU8LIC~DTF£NDER WERT1 

1968-69 
Section 148 Penal Code 

Resisting officers in the discharge of their duties 

Section 242 Penal Code - Battery 

Section 270 Penal Code-Child neglect-failure to provide 

Section 272 Penal Code 

Causing minors to become ward of Juvenile Court 

Section 415 Penal Code - Affray 6- Disturbing Peace 

Section 417 Penal Code - Threatening with weapon 

Section 488 Penal Code - Petty theft 

Section 594 Penal Code - Malicious Mischief 

Section 602L Penal Code - Trepasses - in property 

Section 647 Penal Code - Disorderly conduct 

Section 6478 Penal Code 

Solicits,. or engages in act of prostitution 

Section 647F Penal Code 

Under influence of intoxicating liquor or drug 

Section 650^ Penal Code 

Act against public peace, health or decency, 

false personation 203 

Section 1291 Municipal Police Code 

Loitering while carrying concealed weapon 438 

Section 12025 Penal Code ,r 

Carrying concealed firearms ~ 1 - 3 " 270 



. 934 


1013 


le 129 


174 


1117 


202 


2051 


435 


209 


1699 


1532 


1382 



Section 4143A 8 & P Cede 

Possession of hypodermic needle or syringe 845 

Section 11556 H & S - Narcotic pipes & resorts 527 

Section 11910 HSS - Possession of drugs without prescription 530 

Park Code Sections 1 49 

Mentally ill - San Francisco Hospital 486 

All other sections 3398 

Almost all state students were charged with violation of Sectior 
4o3, 409 and 415 of the Penal Code - unlawful assembly - failure 
to disperse and disturbing the peace. These charges not indued 
in the above figures. 

BENCH WARRANTS 



During the year there were 460 bench warrants issued when the 
defendant failed to appear in court. Most of these will eventual 1 
be brought into court when the bench warrant is served. 

There were also 859 bench warrants issued as part of the case. 
Some were brought into court on previous bench warrants issued. 
Some failed to appear at the date set for hearing and a bench 
warrant was issued. However, they appeared a short while after 
and the case was disposed of. 

MOTION TO SUPPRESS 

During the year there were 182 motions made to suppress evidence 
on behalf of defendants represented; there were 54 miscellaneous 
motions made. 

REPRESENTATION IN WRITS AND APPEALS 

Although the Public Defenders office in San Francisco is not ade 
quately staffed to provide representation on appeals and writs, in 
the fiscal year our office appeared in: 

Four appeals filed in the District Court of Appeals wherein the 
Attorney General appealed from an order of the Judge of the Superior 
Court dismissing an action under Section 995 of the Penal Code. 

Three appeals filed in the District Court of Appeals arising from 
conviction in the San Francisco State College trials; our office als 
joined with other defense counsel in filing an appeal based on Con- 
stitutional considerations in the Federal District Court and after 
hearing, this matter is being presented to the U. S. Supreme Court; 

One appeal from the Municipal Court after conviction, to the 
Appellate Department of the Superior Court; 

Six writs of habeas corpus were filed in Superior Court by our 
office during the fiscal year and in addition, we were appointed to 
represent 8 other defendants who had filed writs, for a total of 14. 

-16- 



446,543. 


00 


1 963- 


69 


5972 




14497 




3079 




5724 




2 368 




3230 





BUDGET EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1968-69 

Permanent Salaries $437,174.00 

Temporary Salaries 170.00 

Contractual Services 1,248.00 

Allowance for use of Investigator's Car 7.00 

Materials & Supplies 1,087.00 

Telephone service 3,600.00 

Law books and equipment, plus new auto 2,917.00 

Expert Witness Fees 

Fixed Charges - Dues 340.00 

Total 

RECAPITULATION AND ESTIMAT E D COST 
DEFENDANTS OR CLI £NTS" 'ftEPftFsENTE'D : 
Traffic cases 

Municipal Court - Misdemeanors 
Juveni 1e Court 

Municipal Court - Felony Preliminary Hearings 
Superior Court 
Office calls for representation or other legal help 

TOTAL DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 34920 

APPEARANCES IN COURT: 1968-69 

Traffic cases 8938 

Municipal Court - Misdemeanors 33254 

Juvenile Court-Persons represented - part of year 3259 

Municipal Court - Felony Preliminary Hearings 18253 

Superior Court 10490 

Line Up - New - U. S. vs. Wade T90. 

TOTAL APPEARANCES 74384 

ESTIMATED COST, COURT APPEARANCES ONLY: 1 968-69 

Per defendant (approximately) 12.79 

Per appearance (approximately) 6.00 

The cost per appearance does not take into consideration any of 
the interviews and conference held by our deputies throughout the 
year in the county jail; the women's prison and the city prison 
to discuss the cases with the clients nor does it consider any 
interviews by our investigation staff. 



-17- 



THIS 



THE ?E?.lCu OF TIME WITHIi! 
YEAR WERE A3 FOLLOWS: 



WHICH FELOilY CASES 



30 days or less 

31 to 60 days 
61 to 90 days 
Over 90 days 



WERE DISPOSED 
1968-69 

52.5% 

27.5% 

10% 

10% 



OF 



These statistics are based on the time from his arraignment 
and until the defendant is actually sentenced and all motions for 
new trials and appeals are disposed of. They also take into con- 
sideration the time after trial and before sentence in waiting 
for reports on Motions for Probation or Pre-Sentence Reports, 
This period of time is usually three weeks. 

Most cases not disposed of within 90 days are those in which 
there is more than one defendant - some represented by private 
counsel, cases where there was more than one trial; cases involving 
capital crimes and cases where Appeals or Writs have been filed 
and defendants on bail. 

PERSONNEL AND COMPENSATION EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1969 



Our office consists of the following personnel: 

Publ ic Defender 

Chief Attorney, Criminal 

6 - Principal Attorneys, Criminal 

12 - Senior Attorneys, Criminal 

2 - Trial Attorneys, Criminal 

3 - Investigators 

1 - Confidential Secretary with legal training 

2 - Legal Stenographers 
1 - Senior Clerk Typist 

3 - General Clerk-Typists 



per month 

$'237B.uO 
1819 - 2211 
1610 - 1956 
1324 - 1610 
1116 - 1357 



834 
854 

565 
551 

500 



1013 

1037 

686 

670 

607 



The attorneys all devote full time to their duties, and are 
not permitted to carry on private practice. 

We have recently petitioned the Civil Service Commission to 
reclassify our Chief Attorney, Criminal, 8194, to Chief Attorney, 
Civil and Criminal, 8184, and one Principal Attorney, Civil and 
Criminal, 8180 to Head Attorney, Civil and Criminal, 81 82 . If 
these reclassifications are approved, the salaries will be as 
fol lows : 



8184 Chief Attorney 
8182 Head Attorney 



1909 - 2321 
1733 - 2105 



Our offices sre located at the Hall of Justice, 850 Bryant 
Street, San Francisco 94103, California; telephone 553-1671. 



-18- 



ANNUAL REPORT 



PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 
OF SAN FRANCISCO 



JULY 1, 1969 TO JUNE 30, 1970 






EDWARD T. MANCUSO j 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 

v - ^^ - O 
<3? J T T X O 




Justice — The highest of the Four Cardinal Virtues 



The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 33 of the Charter 
of the City and County of San Francisco, which reads as follows: 

."Section 33: . . .He shall immediately, upon the request of a defendant who 
financially unable to employ counsel, or upon order of the court, defend or gi 
counsel or advice to any person charged with the commission of a crime." 




PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE 
City f- County of San Francisco 



850 Bryant, 3oom 205 
San Francisco, CA 9^+103 



TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 

Enclosed is a cooy of our annual report for the year ending 
June ?0, l$?0, which we are late in getting out, c)-j? to lack of 
personnel end clerical problems developing during the year. 

We are continual ?y experiencing an increased case load in 
handling criminal cases, all of which are becoming rn:>re involved; 
harder to dispose of and requiring many more appearances and 
trial days. 

I particularly call your attention to page UfA and page 21 
shewing the heavy caseload handled by our deputies who handle 
felony pre 1 irrii nary hearings and misdemeanor cases. There isn't 
a Public Defenders office in the Nation expected or required to 
handle such a case load. 

I call your attention to the tremendous increase in murder 
cases shown on page 11; to the necessity for additional help 
shown on pages 21 - 23; and to the fact that we are still not 
servicing the Juvenile Court because of the action of the 3oard 
of Supervisors and the Mayor, whereas every other large county 
in the state has been provided personnel to service the Juvenile 
Court. 

Last year the Judges assessed fines against defendants we 
represent in felony preliminary hearings and misdemeanor cases 
in the sum of $195,^98.00. 

There were also fines assessed in the traffic departments 
and the Superior Court which are not listed. 



ETM:pm 




Sincerely, 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



EDWARD T. MANCUSO* 
Public Defender 



-t>\ 



^fg" 



JUn 






JURISDICTION 

The Public Defender's office in San Francisco was established 
October 15, 1 92 1 . 

The office operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the 
City £ County of San Francisco which was adopted in 1332. 

We are also governed by Section 27706 and related sections 
of the Government Code of the State of California; Sections 633, 
63^, 658," 653' and 700 of the V/elfare and Institutions Code, to- 
geter with Section 4052,01. to 4852.2 of the Penal Code. 

Our jurisdiction covers approximate 1 y a million people, 
which includes those from the Peninsula and the Bay Area who 
visit San Francisco daily. 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and responsibility 
i s to see that each defendant is granted a fair and impartial 
trial; that all of his constitutional rights are preserved; under 
our Federal and State Constitutions. 

Part of our duties are to handle applications for persons 
who seek a pardon and restoration of civil rights by filing 
Certificates of Rehabilitation when released from the State 
Prison, as set forth in Section 4852.01 to 4852.2 of the Penal 
Code . . : 

The office also is handling an increasing number of requests 
for the sealing and expungement of criminal records. 

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION AMD GENERAL LAWS 

Recent decisions of the Federal and State Appellate Courts, 
in particular the United States Supreme Court, are making the 
constitutional right to counsel real and effective in both Federal 
2nd State Courts. 

The effect of these decisions is that the constitutional 
right to counsel is present at every crucial stage of the pro- 
ceeding and is available to the indigent defendant as well as 
those financial ly able to afford counsel. Because of these 
decisions, end our society's stress on individual rights, new 
and adequately staffed Public Defender offices are being estab- 
lished throughout the Mntion. Existing Public Defender offices 

-1- 



have had their staff considerably increased so as to be able to 
adequately and effectively reoresent those entitled tq, their 
services. 

JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS 



With the recent U. S. Supreme Court Gault decision, upholding 
the right of juvenile defendants to due process, the Public De- 
fenders office in San Francisco has received increasingly more 
demands upon their time to represent juveniles before the Juvenile 
Court . 

When the new Juvenile Court Law was enacted in 1961 by the 
terms of Sections 633, 63^, 658, 653 -and : .7Dp£.qp the .Welfare.;. and 
Institutions Code, and related sections, tine" Public Defender, 
in counties where there is a Public Defender, has the duty and 
responsibility to anpear on behalf of said juvenile offenders. 

In February of this year a suit was filed in the U. S. 
District Court of the Northern District of California by a group 
of attorneys headed by Michael S. Sorgen; Leon S. Kaplan, Barbara 
Kass, Kenneth Hecht and Harvey M. Freed, against the Honorable 
Francis Mayer, Judge of the Superior Court, seeking an order to 
show cause and a temporary restraining order as to why the City 
F- County of San Francisco was not providing counsel to represent 
the juveniles before the Juvenile Court as provided by the In re 
Gault decision. This was a class action oabenalf of -all juveni le 



His Honor, Judge Elbert E. Tut tic, 'Judge of the U. S. Circuit 
Court setting by designation in the District Court for the Northern 
District of California for the hearing of said case, issued a 
declaratory judgment holding it was necessary for the City £• County 
of San Francisco to provide legal representation for juveniles. 
If not provided, an injunction would be issued, as prayed for in 
the complaint. 



- 



Subsequently, the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors of 
the City S- County of San Francisco did approve the appointment of 
additional deputies to proper 1 y* service "the'xJuveni 1e T &ourt- begin- 
ning May 1, 1970 through June 30, 1970. Subsequently the Mayor 
aooroved an additional order for said attorneys to ccntinue ser- 
vicing said court for the next fiscal year starting July 1, 1970. 
This was emergency legislation but it was refused adoption by the 
Board of Supervisors by a 7 to 3 vote. Three Supervisors, John 
J. Barbagelata, Robert E. Gonzales and Peter Tamaras voted against 
said legislation. We are not now servicing the Juvenile Court 
as provided by the decision of Judge Elert E. Tuttle. 






-2- 



- - ..- 



----- - ---- — - UNIT COUNTING v: - -------- 

The unit of counting in our criminal statistics is the de- 
fendant, rather than the case or charge. If several cases-on~ 
one individual are prosecuted during an overlapping time period, 
they are combined. When there are multiple cases or charges, a 
defendant is counted as dismissed or acquitted only if there are 
dismissal or acquittals on all such cases or charges . A defendant 
is counted as convicted when there is a conviction on any one.of- 
a group of cases or charges, even if the conviction be for an un- 
charged lesser and included offense to any of the charged offenses. 
■" '• •' ■ • ■ ■■'■ _• ■'..■'...■ 

APPEALS AND WRITS . 

Although the Public Defender has/continuously requested ad- 
ditional staff in order to adequately represent indigents in 
constitutionally required appeals and extraordinary writs, the 
Mayor and the Board of Supervisors has repeatedly turned down, 
these requests. In spite of the lack of personnel -, -it has -been 
necessary to divert at least one deputy from the courts .to do 
some appellate work deemed vi tal ly necessary in order to adequately 
protect the legal r i ghts of the indigents we represent . _:....,..• Z 

This has resulted in creating even a greater work load on 
the other deputies who are already carrying one of the. largest 
case loads per deputy in the country. If we are to properly and 
adequately protect our clients in constitutionally required legal 
representation in appeals and extra-ordinary writs, it is necessary 
and urgent that additional attorneys be provided to the Public 
Defender's Office for this purpose. 

Appeals and extraordinary writs handled by the Public De- 
fender's Office during the fiscal year are as follows: —._..._ 

" SUPREME COURT ' OF.. CALIFORNIA '-../. -.... _.„... ^. 

McCoy v. Superior Court , SF 22738 - Murder case 



A hearing in this case was granted by the Supreme Court in April 
of this year. Oral argument was on May 1 ,'1970. in Monterey., ;.... 
California, where the Court sat in special session on Law Day. 
The case is one of first impression, involving the application 
of the double jeopardy doctrine. The decision is pending. ; ' 

Gar ri son v. Superior Court , I Civil 28 

A petition for Hearing was filed in this case in the Supreme Court 

in June <5f- 1970. 

-3- • rii .■ ',,-,r 



COURT OF APPEAL - APPEALS TAKEN BY- THE PEOPLE IN WHICH WE REPRE- 
SENTED THE DEFENDANT AMD RESPONDENT - 

People v. Abbott , 3 Cal App 3d 966 (1970). In this case we, 
obtained a favorable decision in a question regarding anonymous 
informants. A Petition for. Hearing in the Supreme Court by the 
Attorney General was denied on March 25/1970- '.'.'... .V ' ■'. 



■ ' " • 






People v. Myles , Cal App 3rd (1970) , . _ 

In this case the court extended the right of privacy doctrine. 
This case has already been cited by other Courts of Appeal in . 
this state, despite the fact that it has been published for just 
a few months. 

People v. Bohn , a favorable unpublished decision involving the 
granting of probation and an interpretation of Section 1203 of 
the California Penal .Code. ,\ [,. , /A/ , 

• ' i- ; ■ ' - .- ■ . r\t - - ■ . 1 1 "'' 'V-. '->-■-■ 

People v. Ellis , pending in the Court of .Appeal . .. J; , , 

WRITS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ' , \ V '. ^ "'.',: 

Canson v. Superior Court , writ filed June 1970. 

Foster v. Superior Court , writ filed and denied Apr! t 1970* ~ r ""'"~ i 

APPELLATE DEPARTMENT; SUPERIOR COURT ... (The following are Appeals 
from mi sdemeanor convictions taken by this office, where it was 
. felt that there were serious constitutional questions raised.) 

People v» Rotundi , et al, pending in Appellate Department 

People v. Canright , et al, pending in Appellate Department 

People v. Alvarado, et al, dismissed by stipulation April 1970. 

THE FOLLOWING ARE APPEALS BY THE PEOPLE FROM PRETRIAL ORDERS OF 
THE MUNICIPAL COURT: , . -■ r: ~ . • 



People v. Crouch , pending Appellate Department ";' r "...■ 
People v. All ad in , dismi ssed on motion April 1970. v 

Approximately ; ten writs of habeus corpus were filed in the 
Superior Court challenging actions of the Municipal Court. 

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM 

Through the efforts of the Public Defender, the Board of 
Supervisors of the City & County of San Francisco in I960 approv* 
the following ordinance for the establishment of an internship 
program in the office of the Public Defender: 



-U- 



Sec. 16.S-1. internship for Law Students and Attorneys. 
The Public Defender is hereby authorized to institute a system 
of internship for duly qualified law students and attorneys of 
the City & County of San Francisco to serve in the office of the 
Public Defender and thereby acquire experience in the field of 
criminal law. The said service to be entirely voluntary and 
under the 1 supervision of the Public Defender and permanent ( members 
of the of f ice of the Public Defender. 






Since the inauguration. of this program many law students have 
served under this- program. - The- response -to the program and the 
gratifying results experienced by those who, have served indicate 
without question that such a program is a vital force in aiding 
in the proper administration of criminal justice. 






In our~1ast budget to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors we 
made a request for funds'to employ law students during the vacation 
period as advocated by arid recommended by the American Bar Assoc- 
iation, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association^ etc. 
This request, however, was not approved by the Mayor and. therefore 
was not before the Board of Supervisors for consideration. - 

This was to be a pilot program with the thought in mind of 
eventual ly employing law students throughout the year ;to assist 
the members of our staff in research investigation etc. which 
program has been adopted by many of the leading Publ ic Defender 
offices in the Nation. rv ' 

! INVESTIGATIONS 

Our investigators' duties are usually compared to. those of 
the Inspectors assigned to the San Francisco Police Department - 
Details, such as Homicide, Narcotics, etc. However,, our invest— 
igators cannot specialize in types of crimes - they must invest- 
igate all types. , , . " 






Their case load has increased to the point where we requested 
two additional investigators, only to be turned down by City Hall. 
At the present time there are three investigators to twenty seven 
attorneys, well below the state average of three attorneys to one 
investigator. 

In addition to their own case lead a reciprocal agreement 
has been in practice where they work cases forother counties. 
Due to the increased number, of new Public Defender offices through- 
out the state, these cases are also in the increase. However, 
the compensating factor in this agreement is the substantial 

-5- 



monetary savings in travel funds. _ .2 

Through the information secured by our investigators the 
attorneys have been able to successfully terminate many, cases, 
thereby eliminating long and costly trials. 



.In addition to securing statements, locating witnesses, . 
testifying in court, taping coversations, producing witnesses, 
they also Subpena all defense witnesses. 



RECENT STATE COLLEGE TRIALS 



- 



. 



The Public Defender desires to publicly acknowledge his - 
sincere appreciation and indebtedness to the San Francisco Weigh:! 
borhood Legal Assistance Foundation and the volunteer attorneys 
who assisted the Public Defender either at pre-trial proceedings, 
or during the actual jury trials. Without this assistance .the 
Public Defender could not have represented the many defendants 
they did in addition to his already heavy case load. • ,:<- 



I 



list of the attorneys who assisted the Publi 



Following is a 
Defender's office: 

,.. . ... ; „ ■ .. .... - , • -.. :,; 

- Volunteer lawyers, assisting on interviews, appearances, and 
pre-trial motions, ^but not trials: 



Charles Dresow 
Stanley Friedman 
L. F. Haberle, III 
Marvin Kane 
James McDonald 
Martin McGinnes ' 



Y T - - • ■ 



Frank Morgan 
Ron Mul 1 in 
Robert Talbot 
Wi 1 1 iam R. Thomas 
Herbert Yanowitz 



. ' - 



Volunteer attorneys who assisted in jury trials: 



Stephen Arian 
Isidor Borenstein 
Howard De Nike 
Herbert Donaldson 
Jeffrey Friedman 
Louis Garcia ' 
Ronald Grossi 
Mark Himel stein 
Thomas Hogan- 
Edward Jennings 
Steven Johnson 
Leon Kaplan 



Jack Morgan * 
Cecel ia Lannon 
James Murray 
Michael Nasatir 
Norman Nayfach 
James Penrod 
Lois Prentice 
Arthur Schaeffer 
Leo Sherwood 
Richard Sims 
Sidney fanner 
George V/alker 



■be o-fti 

■ - -. 



-6- 



In conclusion, the Public Defender wishes to thank these 
volunteer attorneys, the Judges, the Courts, the District Attorney 
and all those who cooperated and assisted in processing these 
cases. It is readily apparent that these cooperative efforts, 
resulted in the savings of many thousands of dollars to the tax 
payers of San Francisco. 

The assistance received enabled the Public Defender to de- 
fend all the cases on jury trials as of June 30, 1969, and nas 
resulted in a tremendous savings to the taxpayers of San Francisco 
who would otherwise have had to compensate court appointed at- 
torneys. 



■ A NEW SERVICE 

- In June of 1970 the Public Defenders office in San Francisco 
worked out a program with the "Self Help for the Elderly" an . 
Economic Opportunity- Counci 1 Project, Chinatown Area, to install 
a program of on-the-spot social case work, sincerely believing 
that such a program wi 1 1 be of material assistance in protecting 
the legal rights of the elderly, low income, minority frequently 
non-English speaking residents of our community. 

Under this program they are assigning to our office an 
experienced Social Worker, Elizabeth Bruenn, of their agency 
who will be assisted by two female graduate social work students 
and one male negro social work student who wi 1 1 be available 
in our office on Monday and Thursday of each week under the 
program. 

Our office is indeed grateful to Sam Yuen, Director of 
Self Help for the Elderly and also to Elizabeth Bruenn for 
piloting this program. We sincerely believe that much good - 
can be accomplished under such a program in aiding and assist-, 
ing not only those people that we might be representing but 
also in consulting with the family members of our clients in 
order to get a better understanding of their home problems 
and the environment in which they are living. 

SPECIAL REPORT ON SUPREME COURT DECISION GRANTING WRIT OF 
OF PROHIBITION IN LIONEL McCOY CASE 

On June 20, 1970, the California Supreme Court issued its 
opinion granting a Writ of Prohibition in the case of Clinton 
Curry and Lionel McCoy vs. the Superior Court of the City £- County 
of San Francisco. 

- 
-7- 



Clinton Curry and Lionel McCoy were charged with the murder 
of Jimmy Carney in San Francisco. On the third day of their 
trial, the main prosecution witness was cross-examined about 
her prior mental illness and her inconsi stent testimony regarding 
an earlier shooting in which she had participated." The "trial 
judge on his own behalf expressed his belief that 'the testimony 
made it "impossible to have a fair trial either from the point 
of view of the People or the defendants" and he declared "a mi s- 
trial. Neither the prosecutor nor defendants' counsel had made 
a motion for a mistrial, nor had they consented to a mistrial . 

When the case came on for re-trial , Deputy Public Defender 
James Magee entered a plea of once in jeopardy oh behalf of 
defendant Lionel Pete McCoy. The Superior Court, however, re- 
fused to dismiss the information and set the case for re-trial. 
The Office of the San Franci sco Publ ic Defender to stop the 
prosecution sought a Writ of Prohibition in the District Court 
of Appeals. That. writ was denied. A petition was then filed 
^in the Cal ifornia Supreme Court asking that Court to issue its 
writ of prohibition and the Court granted a hearing. c 

the Court selected the case as one of four cases to be 
heard at a Special Session on Law Day in Monterey, California. 
Accordingly, the case was argued'before the Supreme Court on 
May 1, 1 970 in the building where the original Cal ifornia Con- 
stitution was adopted in 1 87S- Also, as part of the Law Day 
Celebration in. Monterey, the new Chief Justice of the Cal ifornia 
Supreme Court,: Donald Wright, tobk the oath of office. 

In a '6-1 opinion written by Justice Stanley Mosk, the Court 
held that once a defendant ' s trial has' begun he is in jeopardy 
and, unless the jury is discharged with his consent or his 
counsel's, or for legal necessity, he may not be tried again. 
Legal 'necessity, • the Court ruled, occurs when a jury cannot reacP 
a verdict or when the trial cannot continue because of physical 
causes beyond the control of the court, such as death, illness 
or'absence of a judge, juror or party. 

It is important to note that the only way in which this 
issue was brought to the attention of the Court was because the 
Office of the Public Defender actively sought an extraordinary 
remedy to protect their client's rights. 

Otherwise, petitioners would have proceeded to a second 
murder trial . 



•8- 



FELONY^AND OTHER CASES HAMOtED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 



Felony case's sti 11 'pending 1968-69 120 

Mew felony cases (2 08 with priors) 2151 

Insanity hearings - referred from Municipal Court 204 
Writs - Habeas Corpus - Coram Nobis - Prohibition etc. 32 
Conservatorship Hearings - 9/23/6$ to 6/30/70 147 

Appearances made 219 

Habeas Corpus Writs filed (not included in 

above figures) 19 
Appearances made 21 ,. . 

Jury tr ial s 2 

Filed first papers - Petitions for Rehabilitation 108 
Appearances made at Line Ups 157 

Total Appearances made . . 11378 

Tct^l ch-3-ces filed 2927 

Included in 2151 new cases are: 

] ?.T j ' " ■ ■'• " : ■ ' - 
Mentally TT1 cases " 19 

Certified from Municipal Court under 

mi see 1 i £: seous sec L i ons 37 

Motion to rir.vc!-?. p ^bation - new cases 131 

Motion o rv;-". i ' i vy - •.■;•.-•••. cases 1 8 

Returvid from Staio Hospital for disposition . : . 140 

Returns ci rrom Rehabilitation Center 37 

Returnee! on Bench Warrants 24 

DIJ? SI " ! 0N OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 

D/if-.i *■:■■■■ ■■■. ■:■' ^'ii gu L i l.tv . 991 

Defender:!: ^leed gu'it;, lesser included offense 151 

•Defend*: h t i : ound guilt/ 71 

By ju r y ^0 By court 31 

Def.enrcnt foi'nd not guilty - insanity 2 

D e f e ? . ci c i i ': f o o rs "i not . g u i 1 1 y ; 14 

Ely jury 10 By court 4 
Taken ever by Private Counsel (33 conflict of interest) 222 

Bench warrant issued- 64 

Motion to expunge 5-" seal 7 

Rehabilitation & Executive Clemency - 17 

Special aopearances made .27 

Cases still pending 233 

For sentence 64 For disposition 169 



_o_ 



FINAL DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANT! 
PLEAD GUILTY - WERE FOUND GUILTY OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED 

Sentenced to State Prison for term prescribed by law 182 

Sentenced to County Jail 155 
Probation or suspended sentence with county jail time 

(some with fine or restitution) . <: 554 
Probation or suspended sentence 

(some with fine or restitution) 139 

Committed to Youth Authority 47 

Committed to State Hospitals l 228 

Committed to Rehabilitation Center "-' 125 

OTHER DISPOSITIONS: 7 

Defendants referred to Municipal Court 151 

Bench warrants issued f 40 

Pending for sentence 64 

Miscellaneous - sentences or disposition 24 

SPECIAL MOTIONS AMD APPEARANCES MADE - NOT COUNTED 

AS CASES 

Motion to revoke probation - part of case 1 43 

Motion to modify probation - part of case 10 

Motion for discovery 59 

Motion to reduce bail ~ r " 16 

Motion to suppress :j 113 

Motion under 3050-51 W £ I Code 131 

Motion for new trial - 24 

Mot i on unde r Sec . _ 170 , 6 Pena 1 Code 4 

Motion under Sec. 1203.3 Penal Code 150 

Motion under various miscellaneous sections 69 

Motion under Section 1 368 Penal Code 59 

Motion to dismiss under Sec. 995 P. C. 172 

■ Granted - 14 

Motion for probation - 1152 

Granted - 734 Denied - 204 Other - 214 

Bench warrant issued as part of case 101 

MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

There were more than 100 charges filed on the following Penal! 
Code Sections and Health f- Safety Code Sections: 
Section 245 Penal Code - Felonious assault 
Section 470 Penal Code - Forgery 
Section 487 Penal Code - Grand theft 



-10- 



Section 1.1-500 Health £■ Safety .Code - Possession -'-• narcotics 
Section 11530 Health f- Safety Code - Possession - marijuana 
Section 11910 Health's- Safety Code - Possession - restricted 

dangerous drugs 

There were more than 200 charges filed on the following: 

Section 211 Penal Code - Robbery 

Section 1 368 Penal Code - Robbery .' 

Section 1368 Penal Code - Sanity 

Section 10851 Vehicle Code - Theft of Vehicle 

Other Health & Safety Code narcotic charges 

There were more than 300 charges filed; on Section 459 Penal 
Code - Burglary. 



"'•■'■' • : ' ' ■ ■, ■ - ■ ' 



MURDER CASES HANDLED 1569-70 



Last fiscal year there was a 50?^ increase in murder cases 
handled. In 1 968 we handled 35 murder cases; 1 969-70, we handled 
56 -murder-cases . They were disposed of as follows: ; ,, 



ty of first degree 

t.y to first degree 

ty of 2nd degree . 

ty to 2nd degree 

ty of manslaughter 

ty to manslaughter 



k . ..Found qui . 

1 Plead gui 

2 Found gui 

3 Plead gui 
2 Found gui 
16 Plead gui 

2 , Found not guilty - insanity 

2 'Found not guilty 

•1 — --•— Dismissed on Supreme Court writ of double jeopardy 

2 Committed Under Sec. 1368 Penal Code 

2 Returned from Hospital 

~ 1 was dismissed 

1 sentenced to State Prison 

9 Transferred to Private Counsel 

10 Still pending for disposition 

Those transferred to private counsel were only after 
many appearances made by our deputies. 

During the year there were many charges dismissed that 
were filed against defendants represented. These are not listed 
as dismissed cases by our office . 

During the year there were 388 days devoted to jury 
trials and 62 days to court trials in the Superior Court where 
the defendants were found guilty or not guilty. 

-11- 



BACKLOG OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES - MASTER CALENDAR 



- 



/ 



Our office has never experienced' the large backlog of felony 
cases and the requirement for the number of appearances per case 
that we are now experiencing under the master calendar program 
which was put into effect in San Francisco in November of 1S>69. 

Prior to the Master Calendar the case load of the Public 
Defender in the Superior Court at the end of each month averaged 
approximately 100 cases pending. Today under the master calendai 
program, our case load has already more than doubled to over 
250 cases pending with no relief in sight. 

Because of the manner in which the Master. Calendar is handl< 
our attorneys ard finding it extremely difficult to discuss the 
cases with a Deputy District Attorney where the possibility of a 
negotiated plea exists. This is due. to the fact that the Distri 
Attorney handl ing the Master Calendar does not have the resoonsi 
bility of trying the case. _. .,,. ... , js , 

When the case is set for trial it is set so far in advance 
that it is difficult to determine which District Attorney will 
have the responsibility of, trying the case and therefore be able 
to enter into a real i stic di sposition of cases.. -We are losing 
close touch and control of our cases due to the increase of pend 
ing cases and due to the fact that cases are being set any where 
from 3 to h months in advance for trial. 

In the old system there was a better control of cases with 
continuous possibilities of negotiations since both District 
Attorneys and Public Defenders were assigned to particular court 
and had the responsibility of those cases. 



We find that our attorneys are forced to appear in several 
different courts on the same day where cases have been set for 
trial. This includes both the City Hall and the Hall of Justice 
This has proven to be a waste of the attorneys' time and under 
the present system there is no other way to handle these cases. 

This also makes it very .. difficult to substitute a Public 
Defender in a case because the dates set for trial are not realj 
istic, and not definite and one does not know until the last 
minute which case will go to trial. This makes it impossible H 
substitute an attorney and be prepared to try the case. There 
is no question that the old system afforded better control of tlj 
cases and a better opportunity for disposition. 

Our office would urge that the Master Calendar be disconti 
and the prior system be again instituted so as to more expediti,' 
handle the cases before the Superior Court and assure a more or 
and efficient administration of Criminal Justice. 






-12- 



PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ON FELONY CASES IN MUN ICIPAL CO URT 

-■m - ii ■ ■■ i r i i ■ i.i i i ii ii i ■ _ .■ ii- i ii i ; 1 n I — ' ■ "~ — — 

1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 

Defendants represented . 4202 5724 , 6069 

Charges filed against defendants 5188 .6675 . ' 7^1 8 
No. of appearances made by deputies 1 1851 18253 1 73^3 

THERE WAS AN INCREASE' OF OVER 44% IN FELONY PRELIMINARY 
CASES HANDLED BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. 

OUTCOME OF FELONY PRELIMINARY HEARINGS 



Held to Answer 

Dismissed or Discharged * 

Taken over by Private Counsel 

Indicted by Grand Jury 

Certified to Superior Court 

Special Appearances Made 

Fugitives Appeared for 

Charges reduced to Misdemeanors 

Referred to Juvenile Div. (Minors) 

Certified to Superior Court under I368 PC 

Failed to Appear -.Bench Warrants issued ** 

Pending Cases . ., 

Other Dispositions 

.Motions to r Reyoke Probation - Mew 

-13- 



1968-69 


1969-70 


1606 


1675 


680 


729 


1057 


1413 


109 


93 


31 


8 


197 


13 


85 


80 


1586 


1698 


3^ 


26 


37 


37 


175 


161 


109 


26 


18 


14 




26 



-Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants 
were ~di smi ssed .ckLdi sdhargedy are cases, where, after a court 
hearing, the judge f ouncT the " evidence •insufficient '? to- find the 
defendant guilty., and therefore dismissed the charges filed 
against him. 

** There were 2*+8 Bench Warrants issued in the felony pre- 
liminary hearing cases which were recalled during the calendar 
year, and subsequently disposed of. Those Bench Warrants issued 

do net show in these records. 

• - ' ■•:->.;*.. 

REDUCED CHARGES - 1698 DEFENDANTS 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the defendan 
enters a plea of guilty at his felony preliminary hearing in the 
Municipal Court to a lesser incl uded offense (to wit a misdemean 

The 1658. defendants that plead guilty to misdemeanors were 
disposed of as follows: 

Sentenced to County Jail 258 
County Jail wi th Probation (most with fine or 

restitution) 393 

County Jail - 1 day suspended,. , 59 
Probation or suspended sentence (most with fine 

or restitution) ,9 
Suspended sentence with Probation (most with fine 

or restitution) 955 

Miscellaneous - Time served .15 

Pending for sentence etc. ,9 

Our records indicate that the defendants who plead guilty 
reduced charges, or misdemeanors, which were disposed of in the 
municipal court, that only k0% received any jail sentence whatev 
and that 60% were given suspended sentences or suspended sentenc 
with probation with fines or restitution. 

Most of those who. were sentenced to the county jail or coun 
jail with probation were for a period of 30 days or less. 

Most of the sentences listed above, where the defendant was 
given a suspended sentence with probation, the judges of the 
municipal court imposed fines as part of the suspended sentencd 
and probation. Experience has shown that these fines are paid b 
the defendants, with few exceptions. 

Last year the judges imposed fines in cases where the defer 
ants plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge in the sum of $76,670. 



-lif- 



Last year 38% of the felony preliminary hearings handled by 
our office were reduced to misdemeanors and disposed of in the 
Municipal Court. 



Only 38% were Held to Answer or otherwise referred to the 

Superior Court for disposition there. 

Fifteen (15%) percent of those tried were dismissed or dis- 
charged. 

Approximately 23% were taken over by Private Counsel. 



There were many additional charges filed against defendants 
when the defendant plead guilty to a reduced charge or was held 
to answer or certified to the Superior Court. None of these 
dismissed charges are counted as cases in our office since we 
only count as cases the defendant and the actual outcome of the 
case insofar as the defendant is concerned. 

In those cases that are taken over by private counsel the 
usual procedure is that the Public Defender is specially appointed 
at the time the case is called for arraignment. The case is con- 
tinued for plea and counsel because in the opinion of the Deputy 
Public Defender said defendant is capable of employing his own 
counsel, or the defendant has indicated he would like to employ 
his own private counsel. Private counsel is usually appointed 
at the second or third hearing of said case. 

CASE LOAD HANDLED 

The above felony preliminary hearings were handled by denuties 
in the Public Defenders office in the following departments: 

General Criminal Court Department 9 786 cases 

General Criminal Court Department 10 888 cases 

General Criminal Court Department 11 899 cases 

General Criminal Court Department 12 1030 cases 

Department 13, in which all the cases were originally initiated, 
handled and disposed of: 2*+66 cases 

We have had an average of 5 deputies during the last year 
servicing the 4 general criminal courts, where we should have a 
minimum of 8 deputies. In addition to the 3,603 felony preliminary 
hearings handled they also handled 1^,712 misdemeanor cases. 

-14A- 



MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 



■" 



1969-70 

Defendants represented in Traffic Courts 7304 

Charges filed against defendants 16433 

Number of appearances made by deputies 94-94 

. < . DISPOSITION OF TRAFFIC CASES 

Our records indicate that in the handling of traffic cases 

last year, most of the defendants were disposed of as follows: 

Defendants plead guilty - M&% 

Defendants found guilty 31% 

Defendants dismissed 10% 

Defendants found not-guilty 4% 

Taken over by Private Counsel 3% 

Mi seel laneous di sposi tion ., ..'. . 6% 



DISP OSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS EITHER PLEAD GUILTY 
WERE FOUND GUILTY OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED IN TRAFFIC COURT 

Our records indicate that 53%, of the defendants who plead or 
were found guilty were committed to the county jail - they were 
sentenced from 1 to 5 days, almost all with credit for time served. 
, In many cases defendants were given a suspended sentence or proba- 
tion plus a jail sentence, in addition to- a fine. 

... .-,... ,..-■.... • ■ •• • ' ■ ■ . ;- 

-,. ..Many of the defendants were given either a suspended sentence 
or probation, or were fined or ordered to make restitution or 
sentenced to time served. 

Many of the defendants who were dismissed were sent to traffic 
school and the charges accordingly dismissed. 

This year because of lack of help and personnel, we have not 
been able to break down the disposition of traffic cases or the 
sentences imposed on the defendants as we have done in the past 
in our statistical reoort. We have therefore given a general 
statement as to the outcome of the handling of these cases. 

MAIN CHARGES CITED IN MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS WERE: 

Section 12951 VC - Driver's license, refusal to display not 

in possession 

Section 1 4601 VC - Driving with suspended or revoked license 

Section 22101 VC - Marking or signs for turning 

-15- 



Section 22350 VC - Unsafe sneed for prevai 1 ing condi tions (use 

of al 1 . prima facie limits 

Section 23102 VC - Driving while under the influence of alcohol 

(or combined with drug) '. '_ ' [/_ ' ,,,. 



Numerous Parking tag citations 



- r -v ■•?::•.■ 



Section 1+000VC - Persons who violated or fail to comply with 

code -prov-is ions 



■ ' -" ■ " 



Section 40508 VC - Failure to anpear, after signing citation 

Bench Warrants for failure to appear " 

Most of the persons we represented in traffic cases were tho: 
who appeared in Department 14 of the Traffic Court who were char 
with major traffic violations, such as driving with a suspended 
or revoked license; hit and run; driving under the influence of 
alcohol or drugs, etc. 

. In Department 16 of the Traffic Court we represented mostly 
minors and people in custody who were charged .with minor traffic 
'violation's or when warrants were issued for failure to^appear 
when -j ;i3fendant has received many parking tag. .citations. 

'During the year, most defendants had two or more violations 
filed against them in traffic cases. In the disposition of the 
cases, many of the charges filed against defendants WERE .DISMISS 
when pleas were entered to one charge, or the defendant was four 
guilty of one or two of the charges. . 

. • = / -- ■■ ••• - 

NONE OF THESE DISMISSED CHARGES ARE FILED OR LISTED AS CASES 
" : BY THIS OFFICE/ 



.:..•-.: 



-16- 



... J 



*§£& £$&'.**'* 



1968-69 


1569-70 


1^+497 


15690 


20143 


21966 


3325^ 


33862 



: -" DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEM EANOR- CASES 

Number of defendants represented 

Charges filed against defendants 

Number of appearances made by deputies 

DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1968-69 1969-70 

Defendants plead guilty 6263 8077 

Defendants found guilty 873 I385 

Defendants di smi sse'd or : discharged ..* ". . 2671 1996 

defendants found not guilty 249 294 

.... 10056 11752 



- 



*; Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants were 
dismissed or discharged, are cases where, after a court hearing, 
the judge found the evidence insufficient to find the defendant 
guilty, and therefore dismissed the charges filed against him. 
These records do not consider charges that are dismissed when 
several charges are filed. 

OTHER MISDEMEANOR CASES HANDLED FOR DISPOSITION 

Motions to Revoke Probation - New 212 355 

Motions to Reduce or Modify Sentences - New 78 58 

Certified to Juvenile Court - Minors 54 55 

Certified to Superior Court under 1 368 PC 143 95 

Motions to Expunge or Seal Records - see below 338 2 70 

825 •' • 833 

OTHER MISDEMEANOR DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 

Taken over by Private Counsel ' 1537 1699 

Special Appearance 527 399 

Mentally 111- Hearings 486 10 

Warrants .Issued : 460 . .419 

Cases still pending 88 ,103 

Miscellaneous - Trailing felonies, Off calendar 102 129 

Returned on bench warrants -17- '" 263 

3022 



SPECIAL APPEARANCES FOR SEALING fi- EXPUNGEMENT OF RECORDS 

, ■, — , _ 

Scaling of records under: 

Section 85 1 .7 PC 

Section 1203.45 PC ' ' •' 



1969- 


/' 


34 

77 



TOTAL 1 1 1 



Expungement of records under: 



Section 1203.4 PC 132 

Section 1203.4a PC '..... 26 

Section 1 772 W f- I Code 1_ 

159 

GROSS TOTAL 270 

DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS EITHER 
PLEAD GUILTY WERE FOUND GUILTY OR OTHERWISE SENTENCED. 

Committed to County Jail _" ■ :w. -■■■■'' 

Committed to County Jail, one day suspended* 

Probation with Jail Time 

Fine or Jai 1 Time 

Suspended Sentence or Probation 

(some with fine or restitution) n 

Probation granted with suspended sentence _ 
(most with fine or restitution) 

Fine or Restitution 

Sentenced to time served 

Hospi tal ized 

Committed to Youth Authority 

Misc. Disposition and Bench War rants 

*When the Judge imposes a jail sentence with one day suspended,] 
he thereby maintains control of the sentence imposed upon the 
defendant which can be modified any time thereafter within his 
discretion to either time served or a lesser jail time than 
originally imposed. 

Last year there were fines* imposed against defendants repr 
sented by the Public Defender by the judges of the municipal co 
in the sum of $118,828.00. These, findes were imposed or the se 
was a fine or jail. There is an excellent possibility almost a: 
this money will be paid. 

-IS- 



2517 


248 | 


247 

■ 


317 




1283 




2455 


234 


52 


258 


48 


156 






■ ■ 

THE MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST MISDEMEANANTS HANDLED 
BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER WERE : 
~ — ~~~~- 1?69-70 






Section 1'40~ Penal Code 

Resisting officers in the discharge of their duties 

Section 2^+2 Penal Code - Battery 

Section 270 Penal Code - Child neglect-failure to provide 

Section 272 Penal Code 

Causing minors to become ward of Juvenile Court 

Section 415 Penal Code - Affray. £. Disturbing Peace 

Section 417 Penal Code - Threatening with weapon 

Section 488 Penal Code - Petty theft 

Section 594 Penal Code - Mai icious Mi schief 

Section 602L Penal Code - Trenasses - in property 

Section 647 A, D, G, H Penal Code - Disorderly conduct . 

Section 647B Penal Code 

Solicits or engages in act of prostitution 

Section 647 C - Begging- or sol ici ting alms 

Section 647E PC - Loitering - failure to identify self 

Section 650 1/2 ' "Penal Code , 

Act against public peace, health or decency, 
salse personation 205 

Section 1291 Municipal Police Code 

Loitering while carrying concealed weapon 381 

Section 1202 5 Penal, Code 

Carrying concealed firearms n '., 192 

Most misdemeanor cases carry penalties of a fine or imprison 
ment in the County Jail for not more than 6 months, or both fine 
and imprisonment. 



-IS- 



851 


889 


152 


129 


818 


163 


1996 


368 


246 


168 


1385 


2 038 


1385 






MISDEMEANOR AND TRAFFIC JURY CASES 

When a jury trial is demanded, the case. i s -referred to the 
jury calendar for tr-ial . After a thorough, di scussion of the cas 
with the Denuty Public Defender appointed to represent said die 
there is almost always a request by the client that the demand fc 
the jury trial be waived. 

There were 3126 demands for jury trials in misdemeanor case* 
and U30 demands in traffic cases. Less than 100 of this number 
had jury tr ial s. , . .., ... 

BENCH WARRANTS 

During the year there were many bench warrants \ ssued when 
the defendant failed to appear in court.. Most of these wi 1 1 
eventually be brought into court when the bench warrant is serve< 

There were also approximately 1000 bench warrants issued as 
part of the case. Some were brought into cour.t on previous bend! 
warrants issued. Some failed tp appear at the date set for hear' 
ing and a bench warrant was issued. However, J:hey appeared a 
short while after and the case was disposed of. 

MOTIONS MADE J *' ' 



During the year there were many motions made to suppress 
evidence on behalf of defendants represented, . together with many 
miscellaneous motions made. 



' 



JUVENILE COURT RECORDS 



~-..c 



Up until November, 1 969, the Legal Aid Society of. San Fran- 
cisco serviced the Juveni le Court with funds funded under the 
0. E. 0. Project. We had one deputy who served part time .in the 
Juvenile Court, handl ing contested hearings before the r Superior 
Court Judge and the referees. """''"' ""' "' . 

Contested Hearings . ... . . .,,. r . 35" 

Appearances 5' ( 

Most of these cases were. from. April to June 3.0* while the 
Deputy Public Defender was serving full' time with temporary help 

Rehearings (Heard by Judge after Referee Hearing) .. vi 3' 



Detention Hearings: 



-,i >- ;r : i 



Apri I 

May 17 

June I 1 * 

July 1, 1969 to March 31, 1970 

(These were special hearings) 

_9n. 



' NECESSITY FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL 

The San Francisco Public Defenders office has. always been 
under -staffed. 

Last year our denuties in the k general municipal criminal 
courts represented the following defendants: 

Dent. 9 Dept. 10 Dept. 11 Dept. 12 

Felony charges 

(defendants) 786 888 899 . 1030 

Misdemeanants 3972 3565 3773 3^02 

We averages 5 deputies in these courts. Now with vacations, 
we only have h deputies servicing these courts. Several years 
ago the Mayor and Supervisors approved additional deputies so we 
could assign 2 deputies to each of these courts. 

Immediately thereafter additional criminal courts were opened 
which made it impossible to assign 2 deputies to these courts. 

The American Bar Association in its report on Standards for 
Criminal -Justice said: 

General Standards: 

1.2 Sub-section (D): A lawyer should not accept more employ- 
ment than he can discharge within the spirit of the Consti- 
tutional mandate for speedy trial and the limits of his capac- 
i ty to give each client effective representation . 

3-2 Interviewing the Client. 

(A) As soon as practicable the lawyer should seek to determine 
all relevant facts known to the accused. In so doing, the 
lawyer should probe for all legally relevant information 
without seeking to influence the direction of the client's 
responses. 

We cannot meet these standards with our present staff. 

We immediately need 3 additional senior attorneys to service 
these k general criminal courts and one head attorney to super- 
vise their work as well as the two traffic courts, Department 13 
and the two municipal jury courts. 

Superior Courts : 

We are now servicing 6 superior courts which handle felony 
cases. We have only 8 attorneys to service these courts. We 
should have 12 deputies to properly service these courts. 

-Yr-~ 



We immediately ncea 1 ,^ additional principal attorneys to 
properly service the superior courts.- •"--.--•- 

Juveni le Court : 






The Juvenile Courts have now become subject to the standard: 
of due process. In the past, due process had not generally been 
applied to juvenile courts or juvenile cases.' In re Gault decis 



We in San Franci sco have not seen fi t to furnish the deputi<| 
to service our Juvenile Court even though the state laws require 
us to service it. ; . 

We immediately need two trial . attorneys to service the Juvei| 
Court . 

Appellate Department : .... - .--■■-. 

Although we have continuously requested 3 attorneys to set 
up an. Appellate Department they have always, been deleted from oui| 
budget. 

The state laws provide for our handling appeals. .We proces 
some last year under severe handicap. The American Bar Standard 
of Defense Functions on Appeals provides: ^3 



Appeal s: 






(a) After conviction, the lawyer should explain to the defe 
ant the meaning and consequences of the court's judgment and his 
right of appeal .The lawyer' should give the defendant his pro- 
fessional judgment as to whether there are meri torious grounds J 
appeal and as to the probable results of an appeal. He should 
also explain to. the defendant the advantages and -disadvantages 
of an appeal. The decision whether to appeal must be the defend 
ant's own choice. < 

(b) The lawyer should take whatever steps are necessary to 
protect the defendant's right of appeal. 

We need one principal attorney and one trial attorney to ha 
appeal s. • . -■ ■ 

Investigation : 

The American Bar Standard on Criminal Defense Functions 
provides: 

Duty to Investigate: 

It is the duty of the lawyer to conduct, a prompt investi gat 
cf the circumstances of the case and explore all avenes leading 

-22- 



to facts relevant to guilt and degree of guilt or penalty. The 
investigation should always incfude ..efforts .to. secure information 

in the possession of the prosecution and law enforcement authorities 

The duty to investigate exist regardless of the accused's admis- 
sions or statements to the lawyer of facts constituting guilt 
or his stated desire to plead guilty. 

Commentary: 

The relationship of effective investigation by the lawyer to 
competent representation at trial is patent, for without adequate 
investigation he is not in a position to make the best use of such 
mechanisms as cross-examination or impeachment of adverse witnesses 
at trial or to conduct plea discussions effectively. He needs 
to know as much as possible about the character and background 
of witnesses to take advantage of impeachment. If there were eye- 
witnesses, he needs to know the conditions at the scene that may 
have affected their opportunity as well as their capacity for 
observation. The effectiveness of his advocacy is not to be 
measured solely by what the lawyer does in the trial; without 
careful preparation he cannot fulfill his role. Failure to make 
adequate pretrial investigation and preparation may be grounds 
for. finding ineffective assistance of counsel. See Shepherd v. 
Hunter, 1 63 F.2d 872, 8?3 (10th Cir. 1957). 

We immediately need two additional investigators - black 
persons preferred. We have requested these investigators for 
the last three years. 

Clerical Pos it \£ns_: 

... The courts new require written motions whereas before we 
made oral motion-, We rr>ake many motions for dismissal, discovery, 
to suppress evidence, etc. in addition to writs and the filing 
of motions for the expungement and sealing of records. 

We need another clerk stenographer to aid in preparing these 
papers and compiling our records. 

P ERSONAL CONTACT FOR OUR SERVICES 
During the perfod covered by this report, a total of 2,72 6 
applications were made by defendants OR'd or on bail for our ser- 
vices. Of this number, 286 were referred to a legal panel of at- 
torneys who have agreed to handle the defense of criminal cases 
at a reasonable fee. 

Appeals filed before Juvenile Court Judge 11 



-23- 



. BUDGET EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1969-70 

Permanent Salaries . • i '$500,^33-2 

Temporary Salaries '■ V.»617» 

Contractual Services 968.) 

Materials f- Sunpl ies 1,23**.) 

Telephone Service 4,149.1 

Law Books 691 . 

Maintenance £. Repair of Automotive Equipment . ,' 500.' 

Equipment . , fn -1,528. 

Expert Witness Fees - 350^ 

Fixed charges - Dues -•> -.• ■ ■,«,-•*» 10. j 

$511, 883. 1 

RECAPITULATION AND ESTIMATED COST . , 1969- 
DEFENDANTS OR CLIENTS REPRESENTED: 

Traffic cases . : . .-■-.••> 7304 

Municipal Court - Misdemeanors , . - 1569C 

• Juveni 1e Court. -- - ...,,. Q]( 

Municipal Court - Felony Preliminary Hearings • 606$ 

Superior Court , • -...■ 250* 

;. TOTAL DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED -,-32 38< 

APPEARANCES IN COURT: ; 1 969"' 

Traffic cases - ..- .. 94 9 1 

Municipal Court - Misdemeanors -i ; ' 3386: 

Juvenile Court-Persons represented - part of year 96 

Municipal Court - Felony Preliminary Hearings 173*+. 

Superior Court 1137' 

- Line -Uo -,- 1'ew . - U. S. vs. Wade 15 j 



< 



, TOTAL APPEARANCES 7320 

ESTIMATED COST, COURT APPEARANCES ONLY: 1969- 1 

Per defendant (approximately) ,. $15.8 

Per appearance (approximately) 7.0 

The cost per appearance does not take into consideration a|f 
of the interviews and conferences held by our deputies thrcughel 
the year in the county jail; the women's prison and the city pr>< 
to discuss the cases with the clients nor does it consider any 
interviews by our investigation staff. It does not include firl 
papers filed for rehabi 1 i tation - 108, or people who contacted 
the office for our services - 2726. 



-24- 



, 5 '971 

Huran 



ANNUAL REPORT 



PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 
OF SAN FRANCISCO 




JULY 1, 1970 TO JUNE 30, 1971 



EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 

<£tf,A2V C/ 




S Ftf*^ 



'Equal Justice for all" — The highest of all cardinal virtues 



JURISDICTION 

The Public Defender's office in San Francisco was estab- 
1 ished October 15, 1921 . 

We are governed by Section 27706 and related sections of 
the Government Code of the State of California; Sections 633, 
634, 658, 659 and 700 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, 
together with Section 4852.01 to 4852.2 of the Penal Code. 

The office also operates under Section 33 of the Charter 
of the City £. County of San Francisco which was adopted in 1932. 
It reads as fol lows: 

"Section 33: . . .He shall immediately, upon the request 
of a defendant who is financially unable to employ counsel, 
or upon order of the court, defend or give counsel or ad- 
vice to any person charged with the commission of a crime." 

Our jurisdiction covers approximately a million people, 
which includes those from the Peninsula and the Bay Area who 
visit San Francisco daily. 

CONSTITUTION! AND GENERAL LAWS 

Recent decisions of the Federal and State Appellate Courts, 
in particular the United States Supreme Court, are making the 
constitutional right to counsel real and effective in both Federal 
and State Courts. 

The effect of these decisions is that the constitutional 
right to counsel is present at every crucial stage of the pro- 
ceeding and is available to the indigent defendant as well as 
those financially able to afford counsel. Because of these 
decisions, and our society's stress on individual rights, new 
and adequately staffed Public Defender offices are being estab- 
lished throughout the Nation. Existing Public Defender offices 
have had their staff considerably increased so as to be able to 
adequately and effectively represent those entitled to their 
services . 

The Public Defender's office in San Francisco, however, 
has not received the necessary approval from the Mayor and Board 
of Supervisors in providing the personnel requested, especially 
attorneys and investigators. Enough funds have never been approved 
to cover operational costs such as temporary salaries, maintenance 
and repairs of office equipment; maintenance and repair of auto- 
motive equipment; our law library; stationery supplies; telephone 
expense; postage, etc. - even though increases in these items 
have been requested each year and have automatically been deleted. 

-1- 



Our office only has 3 investigators to service the 29 at- 
torneys or Kss than an average of 1 investigator for 9 attorneys. 
Wc hovo continuously requested 2 additional investigators to come 
from the minority groups. Our experience has proved their need 
to do a b:it-jr fhVestffiflatfcSl in certain areas of San Francisco 
than ihe present investigators are able to accomplish. These 
requests each year have been deleted by the Mayor and have never 
even reached the Board of Supervisors as have most of our per- 
sonnel requests. 

When the San Francisco Crime Commission made a report on 
our office they stressed the need for additional investigators, 
additional attorneys and increases in the al lotment of funds to 
cover the above mentioned items. When our 1971-72 budget was 
approved by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors., our request 
for increased personnel and needed operating funds were all cut 
back nor were the recommendations of the San Francisco Crime 
Commission considered. 

UNIT COUNTING 

The unit of counting in our criminal statistics is the 
defendant^ rather than the case or charge. If several cases on 
ore individual are prosecuted during an overlapping time period, 
they are combined. When there are multiple cases or charges, 
a defendant is counted as dismissed or acquitted only if there 
are disrtjisijats or acquittals on all such cases jar__c ha rges. A 
defendant; is counted as convicted when there is a conviction on 
any one of a group of cases or charges. 

APPEAL S AND WRITS 

Although the Public Defender has continuously requested 
additional staff in order to adequately represent indigents in 
constitutionally required appeals and extraordinary writs, the 
Mayor snd toe Board of Supervisors have repeatedly turned down 
these requests. 

If we are to properly and adequately protect our clients 
in constitutionally required legal representation in appeals 
and extraordinary writs, it is necessary and urgent that addition 
al attorneys be provided to the Public Defender's office for 
this purpose. 



-2- 



FELONY CASES HANDLED 1 970 - 71 



227 
2310 


2537 

8$68 
3631 



:ases pending from 1965-70 
jew cases 

Total 

\ppearances 
Charges f i led 

There were more defendants with priors last year than any 
fear in the past. 

D ISP QS IT ION OF F ELONY CASES 

)efendant plead guilty 

Jefendant plead guilty, lesser included offense 

Jefendant found guilty 

By jury hS By court 17 

tefen.rjarit found not guilty - insanity 
Jefendant fourd not guilty 

By jury 1 1 By court 3 
Defendants dismissed - mostly under 995 motions 
raken over by Private Counsel 
3ench warrant issued - failed to apnear 
"lotion to expunge ar.d seal 
te h a b i 1 i t a t i on £- E xe c u t i ve CI erne nc y 
Special appearances rmde 
2ases still pending (including 34 pending for sentence) 

Other cases handled in the Superior Court included in the 
? 537 figure above: 

^rits - Habeas Corpus - Coram Nobis, etc. 21 
\ppea1 s .16 

Request for Supreme Court Hearing 1 

lotions to Revoke or Modify Probation - new cases 98 

)ertified from Municipal Court under Sec. 1 368 PC 211 

Committed i45 

lertified from Municipal Court under misc. sections 68 

leturned from State Hospitals for disposition 1 80 

Returned from Rehabilitation Center for disposition 22 

leturned on Bench Warrants 24 

SENTIENCES IMPCSJO BY COURT WHERE THE uirCHPANT PLEAD 

^liZZI r .(M'Z . V "••."J :*JVy :-: T -1/-\Z ct"j^'"; s .' - ' "_j.;_:; • b 

lentenced to State Prison 157 

ientenced to County Jail 74 

Probation or suspended sentence with county jail time 792 

robation or suspended sentence 283 



1204 


175 


82 


6 


14 


80 


228 


146 


24 


11 


84 


140 



Committed to Youth Authority 59 

Committed to State Hospitals or Dent, of Corrections 216 

Committed to Rehabilitation Center 123 

Work Furlough 4 

Time served 9 

OTHER DISPOSITIONS: 

Defendants referred to Municipal Court 133 

Bench warrants issued 22 

Pending for sentence 34 

Miscellaneous - sentences or disposition - Deceased 4 14 



Our deputies spent 376 days on jury trials and 26 full 
days on court trials, plus many short court trials last year. 

There were 3 mis-trials and 4 hung juries. Two defendants 
plead guilty after jury was impaneled. 

We filed 16 appeals and one request for a hearing in the 
State Supreme Court. 

There were many motions made in handling the felony cases 
in the Suoerior Court, such as: 

Motions to Revoke or Modify Probation 

Motions to Suppress 

Motions to Dismiss under Sec. 995 PC 

Motions for Discovery 

Motions for New Trials 

Motions for Probation 

Granted 861 Denied 141 Others 151 
Motions under Sec. 3050-51 W & I Code 
Motions under 12 03.3 PC 

Motions under Sec. 1 368 PC as part of case 
Motions under various miscellaneous sections 

OTHER SUPERIOR COURT MATTERS HANDLED 1970-71 

Conservatorship Hearings in the Superior Court, San Francisco 

Hospital 434 
Writs filed - Superior Court, San Francisco Hospital 17 

Aopearances made on above 649 

These cases were handled by our Chief Deputy in addition 
to all his other responsibilities. 

-4- 



209 


65 


70 


57 


26 


1153 


164 


61 


66 


68 







OTHER ITEMS HANDLED 

Appearances at Line-Up 145 

-"irst papers - Petition for Rehabilitation 53 

Applications for our services - Financial statements 3795 

3ther office visits for help - miscellaneous matters 442 
Interviews with clients in City Prison, County Jail 

and office on felony cases 8243 

Most of the felony charges filed against the defendants 
last year were under the following code sections: 

Section 211 PC - Robbery 

Section 245 PC - Felonious assault 

Section 459 PC - Burglary 

Section 496 PC - Receiving or concealing goods obtained 

through theft or extortion 
Section 664 PC - Penalties for attempts 

Major Health £- Safety Cede sections including, narcotic 

and marijuana. 

10851 VC - Theft and unlawful driving or taking a vehicle. 

MURDER CASES HANDLED 1970-71 

This fiscal year we handled 34 murder cases. 

2 Found guilty of first degree 

4 Found guilty of 2nd degree 

4 Found guilty of manslaughter 

15 Plead guilty to manslaughter 

1 Dismissed under Motion 995 PC 

6 Transferred to Private Counsel 

1 Still pending for disposition 

1 Plead guilty to grand theft 

Those transferred to orivate counsel were only after many 
ippearances made by our deputies. 

SEALING f- EXPUNGEMENT OF RECORDS - MUNICIPAL S- SUPERIOR COURTS 
>aling under Section 851.7 PC 46 

Xaling under Section 1203.45 PC 68 

Total fT¥ 

ipungement under Section 1203.4 123 

:Dungement under Section 1203.4a PC 51 

Lpungement under Section 1772 W 5- I Code 8 



Total 182 



-5- 



FELONY CASES HANDLED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURTS 

In all felony complaints and all felony arrest warrants re- 
sulting in a consequent arrest, the defendants charged appear 
before the municipal criminal courts in the Hall of Justice for 
a preliminary hearing before a magistrate who determines whether 
there is reasonable and probable cause to require the defendant 
to stand trial on the charge in the Superior Court. 

Department 13 of the municipal court handles all felony ar- 
raignments, felony bail settings and preliminary hearing assign- 
ments to the other departments of the municipal court as well 
as disposing of a great percentage of the cases in Department 13. 

The San Francisco Public Defenders office has two attorneys 
assigned to Department to handle the felony arraignments in said 
department. The magistrate in Department 13 assigns approximately 
70% of these cases to the other k criminal departments located 
in the Hall of Justice and recently started assigning felony pre- 
liminary hearings to Department 14, one of the traffic courts. 

During the fiscal year 1970-71, the two Deputy Public De- 
fenders in Dept. 13 appeared on behalf of 6480 defendants for 
arraignment and actual 1 y handled and ultimately disposed of 
1968 cases in that department. After arraignment, other cases 
were assigned to the other h criminal municipal courts and the 
traffic court as follows: 

1011 cases 
1 127 cases 
1073 cases 
1 069 cases 
(Traffic court) 232 cases 

It is the duty and responsibility of the Deputy Public De- 
fenders assigned to Dept. 13 and to the other municipal court 
preliminary felony hearings to interview the defendant in the 
city prison or in the office of the Public Defender. if the de- 
fendant is out on bail or released on O.R. prior to the preliminary 
hearing. 

His duty is also to evaluate the case and where possible 
negotiate with the District Attorney assigned to his respective 
court, the possibility of reducing said felony charge to a mis- 
demeanor where the facts and evidence might warrant a reduction 
and thereby disposing of the case in the municipal court. 

If the case cannot be disposed of as a misdemeanor and the 
committing magistrate holds that there is reasonable and probable 
cause to require the defendant to stand trial on the charge or 
charges filed, the defendant is then held to answer in the superior 



To 


Dept. 


9 


To 


Dept. 


10 


To 


Dept. 


11 


To 


Dept. 


12 


To 


Dept. 


14 



If the defendant is held to answer in the Superior Court, 
it is then the duty of the Deputy Public Defender to again inter- 
view the defendant in the county iail and take a statement from 
him as to his possible defenses; to determine whether or not he 
has any witnesses that might be called on behalf of his defense; 
and also to determine whether or not an investigation should be 
made in order to properly prepare a defense to the charges. 

It is also his duty and responsibility at this time to 
evaluate the case as to the possibility of a conviction in the 
superior court; to determine whether a motion for a dismissal under 
Section 995 of the Penal Code or other motions might be made, 
as well as to determine whether or not the deputy who will handle 
the case in the superior court might also consider the possibility 
of a negotiated plea to a lesser included offense or to a mis- 
demeanor . 

This interview becomes part of a file that is immediately 
made by one of the clerical personnel in the office and assigned 
to one of the principal attorneys who handle the felony cases 
in the superior court. 

In the Public Defenders office in San Francisco two separate 
attorneys handle a felony case. First, the deputy in the mun- 
icipal court and then after a defendant is held to answer to the 
superior court by a principal deputy in the Superior Court. 

For this reason, in San Francisco we always list this de- 
fendant as two cases; one case when the committing magistrate 
determines there is reasonable and probable cause to require the 
defendant to stand trial in the superior court. Our experience 
in San Francisco has proved, and the records will substantiate 
the facts, that under this system a large percentage of the 
felony complaints filed are reduced and disposed of in the mun- 
icipal court as misdemeanors. During the fiscal year 1970-71, 
55% of the cases were disposed of in the municipal court thus 
cutting back on the number of defendants that are eventually 
forced to stand trial before the superior court. 

RECORD OF FELONY CASES FILED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT 

1970-71 
Defendants renresented 6^80 

Charges filed against defendants 8929 

No. of appearances made by deputies 18672 



-7- 



OUTCOME OF FELONY PRELIMINARY HEARINGS 

r I J; h 



Held to Answer 1763 

Dismissed or Discharged * 883 

Taken over by Private Counsel 155^ 

Indicted by Grand Jury 60 

Certified to Superior Court 6 

Soecial Appearances Made 21 

Fugitives Appeared for 90 

Charges reduced to Misdemeanors 1627 

Referred to Juvenile Div. (Minors) ^7 

Certified to Superior Court under 1368 PC 31 

Failed to Appear - Bench Warrants i ssued 1^1 

Pending Cases 56 

Other miscellaneous dispositions 166 

Motions to Revoke Probation - New 35 



* Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants 
were dismissed or discharged, are cases where, after a court 
hearing, the judge found the evidence insufficient to find the 
defendant guilty, and therefore dismissed the charges filed 
against him. 






REDUCED CHARGES 

_-_ — ! — . . 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the defendant, 
at the municipal court hearing enters a plea or is found guilty 
of a 'lesser included offense, to wit, a misdemeanor; Last year 
1627 defendants were either found guilty or plead guilty to a 
misdemeanor and were disposed of as follows: 

Sente* ;ce:'d to County Jail 231 
County Jail with Probation (most with fine or 

restitution) ^36 

County J'-ii 1 - 1 day suspended 37 
Pre ::■':■ on or suspended sentence (most with fine or 

restitution) 21 
Suspended sentence with Probation (most with fine or 

restitution) 872 

Mi sc^' 1 $jM ../j : - - Time served "20 

Penning for st r'certce etc. 10 

Last yen!" : .■'}.% of the felony cases handled by -our. office were 
reduced to rr-scJVrnerjnors or dismissed and di ' soosed of in the Mun- 



Ofily 2 6% were Hi'c! to Answer or otherwise referred to the 
Sunerior Court for disposition there. 

-8- 






Approximately 2h% were taken over by Private Counsel. 



There were ma 
/hen the defendant p 
:harge or was held t 
lone of these dismis 
;ince we only count 
^f the case insofar 



ny additional charges filed against defendants 
lead guilty or was found guilty to a reduced 
o answer or certified to the Superior Court, 
sed charges are counted as cases in our office 
as cases the defendant and the actual outcome 
as the defendant is concerned. 



In addition t 

:he Municipal Court, 

s further indicated 

ol lowing defendants 



o the felony cases handled by our deputies in 
the heavy case load handled by our deputies 
by the fact that they also represented the 
charged with misdemeanors, to wit: 



In Department 9 

In Department 10 

In Department 1 1 

In Department 12 

In Department 13 



3882 defendants 
3076 defendants 
3709 defendants 
3559 defendants 
1371 defendants 



_c, 



DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1970-71 



Number of defendants represented 15597 

Charges filed against defendants 20278 

Number of appearances made by deputies 32530 



Misdemeanor cases include persons arrested or cited for mis- 
demeanors committed in San Francisco. They appear before one 
of the k general criminal departments of the municipal court or 
Dept. 13 where their disposition is determined by: 

: : - 

Guilty pleas - Nolo contendre oleas - Submi ssion on the v 
Police Report - Court trial - Transferred to the jury 
department - Dismissed. 

■ 
During the year approximately 12% of the defendants assigned 

to our office were eventually taken over by Private Counsel 

after several appearances. 

The remainder were disposed of as follows: 

Plead guilty 70% 

Found gui 1 ty 7% 

Dismissed or found not guilty after trial 22.5% 

Miscellaneous disposition .5% 

PI SP0SITI0N OF MISDEMEANOR CASES 
n ' l - : .'-H ^HT-^TS E ITHER PLEAD GUILTY, WERE FOUND GUILTY , 

OR OTHERWISE SENTENCED 

Percentages 

Probst io! ~:..'-,d with suspended sentence (most 

with fine or restitution) 50 

Committed to Cov^ty jail (some with one day suspended, 
seme • ';n pre. r ;r-- as a condition and part of sentence) 22 

Sentenced Lo . ■'■"- '-z^rved k 

Sentenced l:> fi»T= or jail 9 

Given Pine r ' ■• restitution 6.5 

0th.. -./.': ■■"■•■■. . - di sdos? t*=on including hospitalization, 
commitments to foufch Authority, issuance of bench warrants, 

etc. 8.5 

-10- 



Many motions, additional charges and court orders arise out 
>f our handling misdemeanor clients, such as: 

Motions to supnress 

Motion for probation 

Mot i on s to mod ' f y sen tence s 

Mr t ?bn s to nvoka probation 

Mot --ens t > r'.i >svft s's 

Mot^Y^s l -.t.:..-!- Action 3051 W £- I Code 

MoL f •:■!!«. to iVx^hg'e or seal records 

MotS&nft L:!V ! .- ,: ." °ena1 Code 

Mojicv: Un ; de.r ?t\7 J4 Penal Code 

So:*; h varrafTt - issuer! as part of case - or for 

fai L.- ;■ c," r."he c.'e fondant to appear. 

The main charges filed against misdemeanants are hereinafter 
Isted, hot. -*n the ovVfer of their severity but in the order of 
:he code sett* 01 'it frequently violated: 

Section kBS toehVI Code - Petty theft 
Section 'M~?c Penal Code - Begging or soliciting alms 
Section 6V'-j pitteaA Code - Solicits or engages in prostitution 
Mo:: 4 . e~~ th::s? defendants were taken over by private counsel. 
Section )k% Penal Code - Resisting officers in the discharge 

of their duties. 
Health £ fs.'eiry Code Sections - Narcotics 
Section -!-';'; ;t - Affray - disturbing the peace. 
Section ?.k? \K - Battery 
Section 5S^ PC - Malicious mischief 
Section 1291 Mu:ii c i pal Police Code - Loitering while carrying 

concealed weapon. 
Sect fen 6'47E P. C. - Loitering - failure to identify self. 
o.'.v..:.-' e 6021. P£ - Trespasses - in property. 
Sac.tior. ..JO 1/2 PC - Act against public peace, health or 

decency. False personation. 
Section 1 2 07: 5 PC- - Carrying concealed firearms 
c :t1on : -'<.' Z - Threatening with weapon. 
'r :;'. icr ;. . ". ;- -g minors to become ward of 

• tifee Court 
oc:tion ::J0 ?G ■€. ::,•,< id neglect - failure to provide 



-11- 



MISDEMEANOR JURY DEPARTMENTS 

During the beginning of the fiscal year 1970-71 there were 
three misdemeanor jury departments operating in the Hall of Justice; 
Dept. 15, the master calendar, and Dept. 17 and 1 8 all of which 
handled jury trials. 

In January, 1971* two additional misdemeanor jury departments 
were established at the City Hall, making in all 5 departments 
handling mi sdemeanor jury trials. The Public Defender has avail- 
able only two deputies to assign to these 5 departments. Although 
we filed a supplemental request for two addi t sanal deputies to 
service the 2 new departments and also included this request in 
our budget for the fiscal year 1971-72, our request was not approved 
by the Mayor and at the present time we are not staffed to properly 
service the 5 misdemeanor jury departments. 

During the fiscal year 1970-7.1 there were 2779 misdemeanor 
jury demands and over 500 traffic jury demands. The Deputy Public 
Defenders assigned to the handling of these cases disposed of al- 
most all the cases by negotiated pleas or court trials. 






Our records indicate that when said cases were handled by 
the jury department of the municipal court they were disposed of 
as fol lows : 

Defendants Plead guilty 42% 

Defendants Dismissed; 20% 

Taken over by Private Counsel 19% 

Bench warrants issued - failed to appear 9% 
Jury or court trials or other miscellaneous 

dispositions 10% 

There were 69 cases that went to a jury trials 
Found guilty 41 

Not guilty 26 

Hung juries 2 

The deputies assigned to this department are experienced and 
very proficient in disposing of these cases to the satisfaction of 
the defendant which is the reason most of them waive their demand 
for a jury trial. By waiving a demand for jury trial and dispos- 
ition of the cases as mentioned herein, considerable expense and 
time is saved as jury trials are expensive and numerous jury trials 
create a backlog which was the result when the Public Defenders 
office handled the City College mass arrests jury trials several 
years ago. 

The Public Defenders office now has pending 203 cases set for 
jury trial in the municipal jury department. 

-12- 



TRAFFIC CASES - MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 

1970-71 



Jefendants represented in traffic cases 7382 

Jumber of appearances made by deputies 9798 

:harges filed 15392 



Two municipal departments handle all vehicle and traffic 
offenses. This year over 500 defendants in the traffic depart- 
nents demanded jury trials. 

Recently a new procedure in the handling of felony cases 
n the municipal courts was inaugurated in the Hall of Justice 
jnd now in addition to handling serious traffic violations in 
)ept. 1^ they also handle some felony preliminary hearings. 

During the nast year the deputies assigned to the traffic 
:ourts also handled 232 felony preliminary hearings. 

We are not listing the statistical breakdown of traffic 
ases handled as we have heretofore. 

However, the majority of trafic cases handled were disposed 
>f as fol lows: 

Mead guilty or found guilty 75% 

Hsmissed, found not guilty, taken over by private counsel 

>r miscellaneous disposition 25% 



-13- 



DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS EITHER PLEAD GUILTY 
WERE FOUND GUILTY OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED IN TRAFFIC COURT 

Our records indicate that approximately 50% of the defendants 
who plead or were found guilty were given county jail for a 
short period of time but almost all with credit for time served. 
In many cases defendants were given a suspended sentence or proba- 
tion plus a jail sentence, in addition to a fine. 

Many of the defendants were given either a suspended sentence 
or probation, or were fined or ordered to make restitution or 
sentenced to time served. 

Many of the defendants who were dismissed were sent to 
traffic school for two nights and the charges dismissed. 

This year because of lack of help and personnel , we have not 
been able to break down the disposition of traffic cases or the 
sentences imposed on the defendants. We have therefore given a 
general statement as to the outcome of the handling of these cases. 

MAIN CHARGES CITED IN MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS WERE: 

Section 12951 VC - Driver's license, refusal to present, not in 

possession 
Section 14601-; VC - Driving with suspended or revoked license 
Section 22101 VC - Marking or signs for turning 
Section 22350 VC - unsafe speed for prevailing conditions 
Section 23102 VC - Driving while under the influence of alcohol 

(or combined with drug) 
Section 4000VC - Persons who violated or fail to comply with 

registration provisions 
Section 40508 VC - Failure to appear, after signing citation 
Bench warrants for failure to appear 

Most of the persons we represented in traffic cases were those 
who appeared in Dept. Ik of the Traffic Court who were charged 
with major traffic violations, such as driving with a suspended or 
revoked license; hit and run; driving under the influence of 
alcohol or drugs, etc. 

In Department 16 of the Traffic Court we represented mostly 
minors and people in custody who were charged with minor traffic 
violations or when warrants were issued for failure to appear 
when a defendant has received many parking citations. 

During the year, most defendants had two or more violations 
filed against them in traffic cases. In the disposition of the 
cases, many of the charges filed against the defendants WERE DIS- 
MISSED or the defendant was found not guilty of one of the charges. 

NONE OF THESE DISMISSED CHARGES ARE FILED OR LISTED AS CASES 

BY THIS OFFICE. 

lif- 



JUVENILE COURT REPRESENTATION 

Last year, after a suit had been filed in the federal courts 
id several hearings and orders issued out of the federal courts, 
te Mayor and the Board of Supervisors finally approved deputies 
>r the Public Defenders office to service the Juvenile Court in 
te City Er County of San Francisco. 

Originally, the Honorable Francis Mayer, Judge of the Juvenile 
>urt, requested k deputies to service the court. We have endeavored 
) try to service the court with 3 deputies but because of the ad- 
itional work now being placed upon our deputies, it is going to 
i necessary that we receive an additional deputy in order to 
•operly service the Juvenile Court. 

During the last fiscal year, representation in the Juvenile 
>urt was as follows: 

jveniles represented, including rehearings 159^ 

>pearances made 2792 

The representation in the Juvenile Court was broken down 
> fol lows: 

;tent ion hearings 975 

iri sdictional hearings 971 

Ispositional hearings 313 

ecial hearings, line-ups, citations, etc. 121 

The breakdown of the cases in the Juvenile Court that were 
mdled by our deputies consisted of cases that might be classified 
fol lows: 

Felonies 581 

Misdemeanors 3*+0 

Traffic violations ^6 

Juvenile crimes *+62 

Experience has proved that in the handling of the cases in 
:e Juvenile Court that they are much more time consuming than the 
:ses handled in the Hall of Justice. 



-15- 



CASES WORKED 0?-! BY OUR THREE INVESTIGATORS IN 1970-71 

Felony cases 405 

Misdemeanor cases 59 

Juvenile cases 13 

t 

Subneonas served 1 67 

Interviews 1138 

In addition to the above, said Investigators performed the 
following services: 

Check medical and coroner records 113 cases 

Searched 454 records 

Filed 42 appeals and briefs 

Performed many office and related services including proba- 
tion matters - photographs - transporting witnesses and attorneys, 
picking up office supplies, etc. 

Among the felony cases investigated were: 

31 murder cases 

6 manslaughter cases 

61 robbery cases 

16 assault with intent to commit murder cases 
50 felonious assault cases 

17 rape cases 

36 burglary cases 
17 auto theft cases 
58 narcotic cases 

Our investigators had a tremendously heavy case load imposed 
upon them last year in our office. With our personnel, we should 
have a minimum of 5 investigators. We have continuously, over 
the last few years, asked for 2 additional investigators in our 
budget and in supplemental requests, which have always been turned 
down by the Mayor and have never reached the Board of Supervisors. 

Our 3 investigators are white and we are in dire need of 
2 minority-group investigators as most of our clients, that we 
are called upon to represent, are from the minority groups in 
San Francisco. In our request for 2 additional investigators, 
we have stressed the fact that we wanted to employ 2 minority- 
group investigators j preferably a black investigator and a 
Spanish investigator. 

-16- 






RECAPITULATION OF CASES HANDLED AND APPEARANCES MADE: 



jses: 



Superior Court 
Conservatorship Hearings 
Felony Preliminaries 
Mi sdemeanors 
Traffic 
Juvenile Court 



Total 



>pearances: 



Superior Court - Felonies 
Superior Court - Conservatorship 
Municipal Court - Felonies 
Municipal Court - Misdemeanors 
Municipal Court - Traffic 
Juveni 1e Court 



Total 



->timated cost 



Per Defendant - approximately 
Per Appearance - Approximately 



2537 

434 

6480 

15597 

7382 

1594 



34024 



8968 

64Q 

18672 

32530 

15392 

2 792 



79003 

18.33 
8.00 



The cost per appearance does not take into consideration 
ly of the interviews and conferences held by our deputies through 
:it the year in the county jail; the women's prison and the city 
i son to discuss the cases with the clients nor does it consider 
:iy interviews by our investigation staff. It does not include 
: rst papers filed for rehabilitation, line-ups, or people who 
:>ntacted the office for our services. Over 12,678 appearances 
v.re made last year on said matters. 



-17- 



ACTUAL BUDGET EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1970-71 

Permanent salaries • $612,459.65 

Temporary salaries 1,607.60 

Maintenance & Repair of Automotive Equipment 1,525.00 

Contractual Services 1,350.00 

Materials £- Supplies 1,287.00 

Telephone Service 4,500.00 

Law Books 975.00 

Equipment 425.00 

Expert Witness Fees 375.00 

Fixed charges - Dues 425*00 

PERSONNEL AND COMPENSATION EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1971 

Our office consists of the following personnel: 

Bi-weekly salary 

Public Defender $1189.50 

Chief Attorney 959 - 11 66 

Head Attorney (1) 87O - IO58 

Principal Attorneys, Criminal (9) 809 - 983 

Senior Attorneys, Criminal (13) 666- 809 

Trial Attorneys, Criminal (4) 561 - 682 

Investigators (3) 41 9 - 509 

Confidential Secretary with legal training (1) 428 - 521 

Legal Stenographers (2) 284 - 345 

Senior Clerk Typist (1) 277 - 337 

Clerk Stenograoher (1) 264 - 321 

Clerk Typists, full time (3) 252 - 306 

Clerk Typists, part time (2) 114 

Our office is paid on a bi-weekly basis, with 26 pay 
periods a year. Many of our attorneys are at the too of their 
bracket as per the schedule above. The Investigators and the 
Confidential Secretary are all at the top bracket of their 
compensation. 



-18- 



<£> 



^ 



ANNUAL REPORT 

PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 
<^ OF SAN FRANCISCO 

JULY 1, 1971 TO JUNE 30, 1972 

EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 

« JI Tl O 



1 5 Id 






SEP 1 5 










Justice — The highest of the Four Cardinal Virtues 



The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 33 of the Charter 
of the City and County of San Francisco, which reads as follows: 

"Section 33: . . .He shall immediately, upon the request of a defendant who is 
financially unable to employ counsel, or upon order of the court, defend or give 
counsel or advice to any person charged with the commission of a crime." 



JURIS DICTION 

The Public Defenders Office in San frartcisco was established 
ct. 15, 1921 and was one of the first Public Defender offices in 
he State of California to represent indigent defendants in a 1 1 
hases of criminal proceedings on a large scale basis. 

The office operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the 
ity 6- County of San Francisco which was adopted in 1932. 

We are also governed by Section 27706 and related sections 
f the Government Code of the State of California; Sections 600, 
01, 602, 633, 634, 658, 659 and 700 of the Welfare and institu- 
ions Code, together with Section 4852.01 to 4852.2 of the Penal 

ode . 

1 

Our jurisdiction covers approximately a million people, which 
ncludes those from the Peninsula and the Bay Area who visit San 
ranci sco dai 1y . 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and responsibility 
s to see that each defendant is granted a fair and impartial 
rial; that al 1 of his constitutional rights are preserved; under 
»ur Federal and State Constitutions and court decisions. 

. 

Part of our duties 6 -4f to handle applications for persons 
'ho seek a pardon and restoration of civil rights by filing Cert- 
ficates of Rehabilitation when released from the State Prison, 
s set forth in Section 4852.01 to 4852.2 of the Penal Code. 

The office also is handling an increasing number of requests 
or the sealing and expungement of criminal records. 

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL LAWS 

Recent decisions of the Federal and State Appellate Courts, 
n particular the United States Supreme Court, are making the 
onsti tutional right to counsel real* and effective in both Federal 
nd State Courts. 

UNIT COUNTING 

: 

The unit of counting in our criminal statistics is the de- 
sndant, rather than the case or : charge. If several cases on 
ie individual are prosecuted during an overlapping time period, 
ney are combined. When there are multiple cases or charges, a 
^fendant is counted as dismissed or acquitted only if there are 
ismissal or acquittals on a 1 1 sue h ca se s or charges . A defendant 
s counted as convicted when there is a conviction on any one of 
group of cases or charges, even if the conviction be for an un- 
'targed lesser and included offense to any of the charged offenses. 



APPEALS AND WRITS 

Although the Public Defender has continuously requested ad- 
ditional staff in order to adequately represent indigents in 
constitutionally required appeals and extraordinary writs, the 
Mayor and the Board of Supervisors have repeatedly turned down 
these requests. In spite of the lack of personnel, it has been 
necessary from time to time to divert at least one deputy from 
the courts to do some appellate work deemed vitally necessary in 
order to adequately protect the legal rights or the indigents we 
represe nt. 

"TKis has resulted in creating even a greater work load on 
the other deputies who are already carrying one of the largest 
case loads per deputy in the country. If we are to properly and 
adequately protect our clients in constitutionally required legal 
representation in appeals and extraordinary writs, it is necessary 
and urgent that additional attorneys be provided to the Pubfic 
Defender's Office for this purpose. 

INTE R NSHIP PROGRAM 

Through the efforts of the Public Defender, the Board of 
Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco in i960 approved 
the following ordinance for the establishment of an internship 
program in the office of the Public Defender: 

Sec. 16.9-1. Internship for Law Students and Attorneys. 
The Public Defender is hereby authorized to institute a system 
of internship for duly qualified law students and attorneys of 
the City and County of San Francisco to serve in the office of 
the Public Defender and thereby acquire experience in the field of 
criminal law. The said service to be entirely voluntary and 
under the supervision of the Public Defender and permanent members 
of the Office of the Public Defender. 

Since the inauguration of this program many law students have 
served under this program. The response to the program and the 
gratifying results experienced by those who have served indicate 
without question that such a program is a vital force in aiding 
in the proper administration of criminal justice. 

INVESTIGATIONS 



Our investigators' duties are usually compared to those of 
the Inspectors assigned to the San Francisco Police Department 
Details, such as Homicide, Narcotics, etc. However, our invest- 
igators cannot specialize in types of crimes, they must investigate 
al 1 types. 

Recently we were provided funds under the Emergency Employment 
Act of 1971 to employ three investigators - two black and one 
Spanish person. The purpose of the act was to provide employment 
for Vietnam unemployed veterans. With this additional help we 
now have six investigators in our office. 



-2- 



RECIDIVISM PROJECT 

Many of the people we are called upon to represent today have 
a previous criminal record. During the last fiscal year we had 
the greatest percentage of felony clients with prior convictions 
than at any time in the history of our office. 

We therefore filed with the California Council of Criminal 
Justice, through the Mayor's Criminal Justice Council, an applica- 
tion for a grant under Section 301b of the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, requesting funds to study 
and endeavor to establish rehabilitation plans in an effort to 
reduce recidivism and maximize the effectiveness of the Criminal 
Justice system in the City & County of San Francisco. 

Under our application we requested funds to employ one Prin- 
cipal Attorney, one Clerk Stenographer, one Social Worker, one 
part time Psychiatrist and three part time law students, all of 
whom would devote all their time to this project. 

Our request has been tentatively approved and we hope that 
during the current fiscal year it will be finally approved and 
the project put into effect. Our office sincerely- bel ieves that 
under this program we can accomplish much constructive help toward 
endeavoring to solve and help indigents who are continually in- 
volved with the problem of recidivism and a continued life of 
crime. 

FOREIGN VISITORS 







pa 

several y 

the Department of State. 

The purpose of the program is to better international relations 
by having individuals selected by the American Embassy make a tour 
of study and observation which experience will result in favorable 
attitudes towards the United States by the individual and his 
countrymen. 

During the past year we again had the pleasure of receiving 
nany representatives from foreign countries who expressed a desire 
and interest in visiting our office. As part of their orientation, 
ie not only explain the operation and function of the Public 
Defenders office, but take them to the courts where they meet with 
the various judges and observe the courts in session. 

The Reception Center has indicated that their visit to our 
office is considered by many to be the highlight of their tour 
and as a result, there is a constantly increasing demand for a 
visit to our office. 

-3- 



FELONY AND OTHER CASES HANDLED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

Felony cases still pending from 1 970-71 122 

New felony cases 2302 

Insanity hearings - referred from Municipal Court I'm 

Writs - Habeas Corpus - Coram Nobis - Prohibition etc. 3^ 
Persons represented in Conservatorship Hearings - Superior 

Court - San Francisco Hospital **10 

Appearances made 1+96 

Habeas Corpus Writs filed (not 

included in above figures 26 

Filed first papers - Petitions for Rehabilitation 56 

Appearances made at Line Ups 103 

Appearances made on felony cases in Superior Court 8305 

Charges filed - Superior Court cases 39^7 

Included in the 2302 new cases are: 

Held to Answer in Municipal Courts 1 662 

Indicted by Grand Jury 32 
Certified to Superior Court from municipal courts for 

sentencing ^7 

Certified from Municipal Court under miscellaneous sections 22 

Motion to revoke probation or modify probation - new cases 151 

Returned from State Hospital for disposition - new cases 133 

Returned from Rehabilitation Center -new cases 53 

Returned on Bench Warrants - new cases 51 



During the past year the felony case load of the Public 
Defender in Superior Courts was slightly above the previous year. 
However, the pending case load of the individual Deputy Public 
Defender has been reduced, allowing the Deputy to devote more 
time in the handling of his calendar. 

The reduction of the pending case load is attributed to 
the efficient and expeditious disposition of cases in the master 
calendar court, presided over by Superior Judge Walter F. Calcagno 
who should be commended, along with his staff,, the District 
Attorney, Probation Department, defense attorneys and Public 
Defender who all made valuable contributions. 



-i*~ 



: 



DISPOSI T ION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 

Defendant plead guilty 127** 
Defendant plead guilty, lesser included offense-not degrees 51 

Defendant found guilty 71 

By jury 61 By court 10 

Defendant found not guilty - insanity 2 

Defendant found not guilty 20 

By jury 16 By court k 

Defendants dismissed - mostly under 995 motions 10*+ 
Taken over by Private Counsel - usually after several or 

more appearances by Deputy Public Defenders 200 

Bench warrant issued - for failure to appear 68 

Motion to expunge & seal 6 

Rehabilitation & Executive Clemency 13 

Cases still pending for sentencing or other disposition 88 

Referred back to Municipal Court 66 

Referred to Youth Guidance Center 2 



FINAL DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS 
PLEAD GUILTY - WERE FOUND GUILTY OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED : 

Sentenced to State Prison for term prescribed by law 220 

Sentenced to County Jail ^7 

Probation or suspended sentence with county jail time 619 

Probation - mostly with fine or restitution ^03 

Committed to Youth Authority 36 

Committed to State Hospitals 177 

Committed to Rehabilitation Center 227 

Time served 19 

Pending for sentence 19 

Miscellaneous - sentence or disposition - deceased 19 

In analyzing the final disposition of Superior Court cases 
in which the defendants either plead guilty or were found guilty, 
last year we found there was a much greater number that were 
sentenced to state prison than has been the experience heretofore. 

There were also many more defendants granted straight pro- 
bation with fine or restitution as a condition of said probation 
than has heretofore been experienced, together with a corres- 
ponding reduction of defendants who were granted probation to- 
gether with a county jail sentence. 



-5- 



I 



SPECIAL MOTIONS AND APPEARANCES MADE - NOT COUNTED 

AS CASES 

Motion to revoke or modify probation - part of case 377 
Motion for discovery 139 
Motion to reduce bail 8 
Motion to suppress 6^ 
Motion under 3050-51 W 6- I Code 212 
Motion under Sec. 1203.3 Penal Code 68 
Defendants found addicted - Committed to California Rehab- 
ilitation Center 211 
Motion for new trial 30 
Motion under various miscellaneous sections 101 
Motion to dismiss under Sec. 995 Penal Code 73 
Motion for probation 1256 
Granted - 903 Denied - 175 Other dispositions - 178 



Most of the motions listed above are now required by the 
court to be made in writing rather than being made verbally, 
which fcr many years was the practice here in San Francisco. 
This is particularly true insofar as motions for discovery, 
reduction of bail, to suppress evidence, for new trial, to dismiss 
under Section 995 of the Penal Code are concerned. Many other 
motions are made from time to time by the deputies that are 
verbal motions and are not shown on this report J 

MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

Most of the felony charges filed against the defendants last 
year were under the following code sections, in the following order: 

Major Health £• Safety Code sections including narcotic 

and marijuana 

Section 4 59 PC - Burglary 

Section 211 PC - Robbery 

Section 2^5 PC - Felonious assault 

Section *+96 PC - Receiving or concealing goods obtained 

through theft or extortion 
Section *f87 PC - Grand theft 

Section 10851 VC - Theft and unlawful driving or taking 

a vehicle. 

-6- 



PRIORS AND NARCOTIC CHARGES 
Last year we had an increase of indigent defendants that we 
»re called upon to represent in the Superior Court. 

Our records also show that we had the greatest number of 
2fendants that we were called upon to represent with priors, 
any of them with several priors. In all, 604 defendants that 
» ended up in representing had prior convictions. 

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER 



It is also interesting to note that there was a considerable 
ncrease in the number of defendants charged with narcotic charges 
hich is also recognized by the fact that in the last fiscal year 
8 had 211 defendants , or more than at any other time, referred 
o the California Rehabilitation Center because of their narcotic 
ddiction. 

MURDER CASES HANDLED 1971-72 

It ' 

This fiscal year we handled and appeared in 41 murder cases. 

1 plead guilty of first degree 

2 found guilty of 2nd degree 

3 plead guilty of 2nd degree 
10 plead guilty to manslaughter 

8 Transferred to Private Counsel 
6 Still pending for disposition 
1 Found hot guilty 
10 Special appearances made on appointment by the court 

Those transferred to private counsel were only after many 
ppearances made by our deputies. 

SEALING Sr EXPUNGEMENT OF RECORDS - MUNICIPAL 6- SUPERIOR 



ealing under Section 851.7 PC 

ealing under Section 12 03.1+5 PC 

ealing under Section 1203 .^+5 PC - McMahon 



COURTS 



49 
68 
16 



Total 



xpungement 
xpungement 
xpungement 



under Section 1203.4 
under Section 1203.4a PC 
under Section 1772 WS-I Code 



133 

181 

30 

4 



Total 



215 



ITEMS HANDLED 



OTHER 
splications for our services - Financial statements 

Rejected - Referred - 624 
ther office visits for help - miscellaneous matters 
iter views with clients in City Prison and County Jail 

• 



4620 

660 
8500 



-7- 



JURY TRIALS 

We also had more jury trials last year in the Superior Court, 
together with the fact that our records indicate that these jury 
trials consumed more time and days of trial work. 

BENCH WARRANTS 

Our records indicate that last year, during the representation 
of indigent defendants in the Superior Court that there were 
2 59 bench warrants as part of the case. Many of these defendants 
against whom bench warrants were issued were ultimately brought 
back into court and the bench warrant discharged and the forfeit 
of bail set aside. 

CONSERVATORSHIP PROCEEDINGS 

Conservatorship proceedings are conducted pursuant to the 
Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welfare and Institutions Code §5000 
et seq) and the Public Defender is required to provide repre- 
sentation for indigent conservatees, which is practically all 
of the conservatees appearing before the court. 

In San Francisco Conservatorship Hearings are held in the 
Superior Court located at the San Francisco General Hospital. 
The Public Defender's office in San Francisco is handling this 
great case load without having received additional help to pro- 
vide this representation. Deputy Public Defenders are assigned 
to handle these cases in addition to their other duties and 
responsibilities. 

The purpose of this Act is expressed in Section 5001 of the 
Welfare and Institutions Code which states: 

§5001 . Declaration of legislative intent 

The provisions of this part shall be construed to promote 
the legislative intent as follows: 

(a) To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary- 
commitment of mentally disordered persons and persons im- 
paired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal dis- 
abilities; 

(b) To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with 
serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism; 

(c) To guarantee and protect public safety; 

(d) To safeguard individual rights through judicial review; 

(e) To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and 
placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely 
disabled persons; 

(f) To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, pro- 
fessional personnel and public funds to accomplish these 
objectives and to prevent duplication of services and un- 
necessary expenditures. ft 



RECORD OF FELONY CASES HANDLED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT 

jfendants represented 6320 

larges filed against defendants 106^5 

). of appearances made by deputies 20855 

DISPOSITION OF FELONY CASES HANDLED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURTS 

ild to Answer 1662 

ismissed or Discharged * 958 

jken over by Private Counsel 1615 

idicted by Grand Jury 32 

srtified to Superior Court for sentence 4o 

>ecia1 Appearances Made 7 

jgitives Appeared for 70 

larges reduced to Misdemeanors 1^48 

jferred to Juvenile Div. (Minors) 3*+ 

irtified to Superior Court under 1368 PC 25 

nled to Appear - Bench Warrants issued 190 

ending Cases 157 

:her miscellaneous dispositions 29 

)tions to Revoke Probation - New 53 

. 
* Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants 
sre dismissed or discharged, are cases where, after a court 
taring, the judge found the evidence insufficient to find the 
Pendant guilty, and therefore dismissed the charges filed 
gainst him. 

REDUCED CHARGES 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the defendant, 
: the municipal court felony hearing, enters a negotiated plea or 
i"> found guilty of a lesser included offense, to wit, a misdemeanor. 
1st year ]kk8 defendants were either found guilty or plead guilty 
i) a misdemeanor and were disposed of as follows: 

i'.ntenced to County Jail 1 67 

: obation with County Jail 400 

>unty Jail - 1 day suspended 18 

obation (mostly with fine or restitution) 81 

scellaneous - Time served etc. 31 

Ending for sentence etc. 22 



' 



Last year 56% of the felony cases handled by our office that 
d court hearings were reduced to misdemeanors or dismissed and 
sposed of in the Municipal Court. 

Only 3^.5% of the felony cases were Held to Answer to the 
peri or Court for disposition. 

-9- 






Last year the Municipal Court Judges opened a new department 
in the Hall of Justice known as Department 19 for the purpose of 
hearing all felony arraignments in the Municipal Court. 

■ 

This court was presided over by Judge Claude D. Perasso, a 
former member of the Public Defender's office here in san Francisco, 
arising out of our own thinking some time ago that such a policy 
would expedite the handling of felony cases in the Municipal Court. 

■ 

Both our office and the District Attorneys office requested 
two additional Principal Attorneys to properly Service thfs de- 
partment but the Mayor and Board of Supervisors only approved one 
position for the District Attorney and the Public Defender. 

To properly service this court we should have two deputies 
at all times assigned to this department. In order "to service it 
properly' we have been forced to assign different deputies from 
other departments to help service Department 19- 

Last year the handling of felony arraignments in the Municipal 
Court have been expedited. Many cases are now disposed of on 
negotiated pleas and dismissed or discharged in all municipal 
court departments. 

■.■" ' ■ - - • 

For example, 56% of the felony cases handled by our deputies 
to final di spcsition were reduced to mi sdemeanors or disfni ssed in 
the Municipal Court last year. 

Our deputies in the municipal courts appeared on behalf of 
defendants in the municipal courts that were charged with felonies 
and misdemeanors as follows: 

- ; ■•..-'..' U2I 

Felonies Misdemeanors 

■ • 

Department 9 659 3^73 

■ • ' f I 

Department 10 11^7 2 7^1 

Department 11 1181 2936 

Department 12 1168 3310 

Department 13 35^9 1846 

Department 19 3509 988 

- | 



-10- 



•. • ■ 



■ . 
HANDLING OF MISDEMEANOR CASES ON BEHALF OF INDIGENT DEFENDANTS 

IPREME COURT RECOGNIZES MISDEMEANANTS' S RIGHT TO COUNSEL 

On June 12, 1972, the United States Supreme Court handed down 
momentous decision in Argersinger v. Hamlin . The petitioner in 
ie case was a Florida defendant convicted in a state court of a 
sdemeanor . He argued that at trial he should have been appointed 
►unsel as he had requested. The United States Supreme Court agreed. 
ie Court's opinion, written by Mr. Justice Douglas, stated that 
»unse1 must be provided in any criminal prosecution where there 
; a possibility of incarceration, and that if the accused is not 
presented by counsel, imprisonment may not be imposed. Concurring 
tinions were written by Chief Justice Burger and by Justices 
ennan, Powell and Rehnquist. There were no dissenting opinions. 

This case finally determined the right of indigent defendants 
> appointment of counsel in a misdemeanor case under the 6th 
Tendment of the U. S. Constitution, when the question of the 
position of a jail sentence was possible. 

In its ruling, the Court, in an opinion by Justice Douglas, 
d not tie the requirement of counsel to the maximum punishment 
ovided by statute. Instead, the Court held that, "absent a 
lowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for 
ly offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, 
iless he was represented by counsel at his trial." 



Distinguishing the right to counsel from the right to a trial 
r jury which has been construed as limited to charges entailing 
imaximum punishment of six months or more, the Court stated, 

We reject, therefore, the premise that 
since prosecutions for crimes punishable 
by imprisonment for less than six months 
may be tried without a jury, they may 
always be tried without a lawyer. 

However, the Court stopped short of requiring that counsel be 
>ovided to any misdemeanant charged with an offense punishable 
I deprivation of liberty. Thus, the Court noted, 

The run of misdemeanors will not be 
affected by today's ruling. But in those 
that end up in the actual deprivation of 
a person's liberty, the accused will 
receive the 'benefit of the guiding hand 
of counsel' so necessary when one's 
liberty is in jeopardy. 

-11- 



The Court described how the new system would operate in these terms: 






Under the rule we announce today, every 
judge will know when. the trial of a mis- 
demeanor starts that no imprisonment 
may be imposed, even though local law 
permits it, unless the accused is repre- 
sented by counsel. He will have a measure 
of the seriousness and gravity of the offense 
and therefore know when to name a lawyer 
• to represent the accused before the trial 
starts. 

Chief justice Burger, concurring in the result, thought that 
the practical result of the decision would be that, in each case, 
"the trial judge and the prosecutor will have to engage in a pre- 
dictive evaluation ... to determine whether there is a signifi- 
cant likelihood that, if the defendant is convicted, the trial 
will sentence him to a iail term. 11 Justice Powell, in his con- 
currence, expressed the fear that "judges will be tempted arbitrar- 
ily to divide petty offenses into two categories - those for which 
sentences of imprisonment may be imposed and those in which no such 
sentence will be given regardless 6f the statutory authorizaion." 

Perhaps judges willbe able to avoid this pitfall by following 
the ABA Minimum Standard quoted by Chief Justice Burger in his 

concurrence: 

■ 

Counsel should be provided in all criminal 
proceedings for offenses punishable by loss 
of liberty, except those types of offenses 
for which such punishment is not likely to 
be imposed, regardless of their denomination 
as felonies, misdemeanors, or otherwise. 
. 
It should also be noted that earlier this term, the Supreme 
Court, in Mayer v. City of Ch ' cago , extended to indigents the 
right to a free transcript on appeal, and that last year the Su- 
preme Court held in Tate v. S h ort that indigents could not be 
imprisoned for failure to pay a fine. 

, ... ' • - 

Also in a recent case in the District Court of Appeals in 
the State of California, Rodriguez vs. Municipal Court , 25 CA 3d, 

521 , they held: 

... .. 

It is settled beyond cavil in this state that under 
the California Constitution (Art. I, §13) ari indigent 
defendant in a criminal prosecution for a misdemeanor, 
OF WHATEVER DEGREE OR TYPE, is entitled to representation 
by counsel. (5) It is further established that the 

-12- 









court must advise the defendant of his right tc counsel 
and inform him that if he is unable to afford an attorney, 
one will be appointed at public expense. The court must 
make suitable inquiry of the defendant regarding his fin- 
ancial condition, and if he is not financially able to 
employ counsel and he desires representation, the court 
must appoint counsel to represent him at public expense. 



It is interesting to note that the Public Defenders office 
i the City £- County of San Francisco, under the leadership of 
iward T. Mancuso, the Public Defender, in 195^ when Mr. Mancuso 
as appointed by the then Mayor, Elmer £. Robinson, he saw the 
icessity of representing indigent defendants in misdemeanor cases. 
■. Mancuso urged the importance of representation in misdemeanor 
3ses, particularly becuase of the fact that the persons involved 
ire usually young persons, appearing before the court for the 
irst time. Mr. Mancuso, in his report to Mayor Elmer E. Robinson 
I February, 1955, in requesting deputies to handle misdemeanor 
ases in the Municinal Court stated as follows: 

JOte: "1. MISDEMEANORS . 

"Experience shows f-^w men to be charged with felonies who have 
Dt previously been found or pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, 
recently the Public Defender's office handles only felony cases. 
co not advocate that this office represent all defendants in 
jch widespread minor offenses as drunkeness, traffic violations, 
agrancy and the like. These cases are disposed of quickly and 
fficiently for the most part within the simple framework of es- 
iablished legal procedure by our elected judges. 

There are, however, as a result of legislative action over 
ne years, increased penalties in many so-called minor offenses 
• misdemeanors -- complex issues are involved which carry severe 
inalties and establish forever against the defendant, when found 
Jilty, a record that often leads to a life of crime. Often this 
)uld have been averted had the defendant been properly repre- 
jnted in the initial misdemeanor case. 

Experience has shown that many uninformed and inexperienced 
irsons, without financial means to employ counsel, plead guilty 
) crimes in order tc save time and trouble, or to win suspension 
sentence. They do not realize that a plea of guilty may ulti- 
itely affect their rights and privileges as citizens of the com- 
mity; even depriving them of employment in certain job categories, 
lis is particularly true of young people appearing for the first 
me before the courts. 



-13- 






It is not possible at this early date to delineate the spec- 
ific coverage in misdemeanor cases. It was established in all 
communities studied, that there is no definite yardstick to de- 
termine this particular need. It is essentially a local problem 
and each community, along with the local Bar Association, must 
arrive at the best solution. 

It is my recommendation, however, that the Public Defender's 
office be furnished with two deputies whose duties shall include 
attendance at all times in the two municipal courts where mis- 
demeanor matters are handled, so that they may be called upon by 
the court to represent indigent defendants when needed. These 
same deputies shall also represent all felony cases in the prelim- 
inary hearings before the lower courts. 

Within a short period of time, we can more intelligently de- 
termine which types of misdemeanor cases should be handled by the 
Public Defender's office." End quote. 

Thus, the San Francisco Public Defenders office was one of 
the first offices in the nation to see and recognize the necessity 
of appointing counsel to represent indigent defendants involved 
in misdemeanor cases - 18 years before this right was recognized 
by the U. S. Supreme Court and also many years before it was recog- 
nized by the Appellate Courts of the State of California. 

The judges in the Municipal Courts of the City & County of 
San Francisco have always felt that the representation of indigents 
in misdemeanor cases is an important part of "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER 
THE LAW" and have been very liberal in the appointment of Deputy 
Public Defenders to represent their interest when appearing before 
them, which is one of the reasons why the Public Defender's office 
in the City & County of San Francisco year after year represents 
approximately 15,000 indigent defendants before the Municipal 
Courts each year. 

It was interesting to note that immediately after the Public 
Defender started representing indigent defendants in misdemeanor 
cases that an average of k0% or more of the defendants represented 
were either dismissed or found not guilty. Before the Public 
Defender represented indigents in misdemeanor cases, the records 
show that 90% or more of the misdemeanor defendants who appeared 
before the court either plead guilty or were found guilty on the 
uncorroborated testimony of the arresting officer. 

Approximately 8 years ago when San Francisco Public Defender 
Edward T. Mancuso served as Chairman of the Committee on Defense 
of Indigent Persons, a Sub-Committee of the Criminal Law Section 
of the American Bar Assn., under his leadership the Committee 
approved a resolution which was approved by the House of Delegates 
of the American Bar Assn. as follows: 

-14- . 



RESOLUTION 

The Sub-Committee on Defense of Indigent Persons submits the 
)1 lowing Resolution for adoption: 

RESOLVED: That the Committee on Defense of Indigent Persons 
jpports as a fundamental principle of law the concept that all 
idigent persons are entitled, as a matter of constitutional 
ight, to have adequate, effective, independent legal counsel 
■ovided to insure the safeguarding of his constitutional rights 
1 all criminal matters and when any criminal accusation is brought 
jainst them, and 

That said counsel should always be provided to defend all 
-iminal accusations, at the misdemeanor level as well as in 
ilony cases and 

That counsel should also be provided for indigent juveniles 
5 well as for their parents or guardians, if indigent. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Criminal Law Section of the 
berican Bar Association is urged to adopt this Resolution and 
:> recommend to the Board of Governors of the American Bar Assoc - 
3tion that similar action be taken by them. 

EDWARD T. MANCUSO, Chairman 
Committee on Defense of 
Indigent Persons 



-15- 



DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1971 -72 
Number of defendants represented 1*+33b 

Charges filed against defendants 21670 

Number of appearances made by deputies 26532 

■ ' ■ • - ■ . 

Misdemeanor cases include persons arrested or cited for mis- 
demeanors committed in San Francisco. They appear before one 
of the 5 general criminal departments of the municipal court or 
Department 13 & 19 where their disposition is determined by: 

i 
Guilty pleas - Nolo contendre pleas - Submission on the 
Police Report - Court trial - Transferred to the jury 
department - Dismissed, etc. 



. 



During the year approximately 8% of the defendants assigned 
to our office were eventually taken over by Private Counsel 
after several appearances. 

The remainder were disposed of as follows: 

Percentages 

n i -- -i — *^-— — — 

Plead gui 1 ty 60% 

Found gui Ity 3.5% 

Dismissed or found not gui 1 ty after trial 18% 
Miscellaneous disposition and bench warrants 

issued 2.5% 

Probation revoked 8% 

DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEAN O R CAS ES 
IN WHICH DEFENDANTS EITHER P i. ^AD GUILTY", WER E FOUMD GUILTY, OR 

OTHLRWISr SENTENCED 

Percentages 
Probation granted with suspended sentence (mostly 
with fine or restitution) 50% 

Committed to County Jail (some with one day suspended, 
some with probation) 30% 

Probation or suspended sentence 7% 

Sentenced to fine or jail 7% 

Other miscellaneous disposition including hospitali- 
zation, commitments to Youth Authority, issuance of 
bench warrants, etc. 6% 



-16- 



Many motions, additional charges and court orders arise out 
>f our handling misdemeanor clients, such as: 

Motions to suppress 

Motion for probation 

Motions to modify sentences 

Motions to revoke probation 

Motions to dismiss 

Motions under Section 3051 W £■ I Code 

Motions to expunge or seal records 

Motions under 1 368 Penal Code 

Motions under 987.4 Penal Code 

Bench warrant - issued as part of case - or for failure 

of the defendant to appear - over 700 issued last year. 

The main charges filed against misdemeanants are hereinafter 
listed, not in the order of their severity but in the order of 
:he code section most frequently violated: 

Various sections of 647 of the Penal Code 

Section 488 Penal Code - Petty theft 

Section 415 PC - Affray - disturbing the peace 

Health & Safety Code Sections - Narcotics 

Section 242 PC - Battery 

Section 148 PC - Resisting officers in the discharge 

of their duties. 

Section 1291 Municipal Police Code - Loitering while carrying 

concealed weapon. 

Section 594 PC - Malicious mischief 

Section 602 L PC - Trepasses - in property. 



-17- 



■ 

MISDEMEANOR JURY DEPARTMENTS 



I 



f 



During the beginning of the fiscal year 1 971 -72 there were 
three misdemeanor jury departments operating in the Hall of 
Justice; Dept. 15, the master calendar, and Dept. 17 and 18 
all of which handled jury trials. In January, 1971, two addi- 
tional misdemeanor jury departments were established at the City 
Hall, making in all 5 departments handling misdemeanor jury 
trials. 

During the fiscal year 1971-72 there were 2729 misdemeanor 
jury demands and over 500 traffic jury demands. The Deputy 
Public Defenders assigned to the handling of these cases disposed 
of almost all the cases by negotiated pleas or court trials. 
Only k8 of the above mentioned defendants who demanded jury 
trials actually had jury trials. 

The deputies assigned to this department are experienced 
and very proficient in disposing of these cases to the satis- 
faction of the defendant which is the reason most all of them 
waive their demand for a jury trial. By waiving a demand for 
jury trial and disposition of the cases as mentioned herein, 
considerable expense and time is saved as jury trials are ex- 
pensive. 

DEMONSTRATION CASES 

Last year our deputies were appointed by the Municipal Court 
Judges to appear specially for 36 defendants who were arrested 
in the Union Square Demonstrations in May of 1972. We made 
56 appearances on their behalf before private counsel was obtained 



-18- 



TRAFFIC CASES - MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 

1 97 1-72 
lefendants represented in traffic cases k5W* 

umber of appearances made by deputies 799^ 

harges filed 7804 

In the last fiscal year we had a considerable reduction 
n the number of defendants we were called upon to represent in 
raffic cases. 

The reason for this reduction was because we had to withdraw 
ur deputy, because of lack of personnel, who was servicing 
raffic Department 16. We requested an additional deputy to 
ervice this department but our request was denied. 

The majority of traffic cases were disposed of as follows: 

Plead gji i ty 5k% 

Found cjui 1 ty 17% 

Found net guilty or dismissed ]k% 

Miscellaneous disposition such as Private 
Counsel, Revoke Probation, Modify sent- 
ences etc, 15% 



Of the many charges filed against the defendants, the two 

ost often filed were: 

Section 2 3102 VC - Driving under the in- 
fluence of alcohol or drugs 35% 

Section 1*+601 VC - Driving with suspended 

or revoked license 10% 



-19- 



JUVENILE COURT DIVISION OP THE 
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE 

During the last fiscal year, representation in the Juvenile 
Court was as follows: 

Juveniles represented, including rehear ings 3309 

Appearances made 5698 

The representation in the Juvenile Court was broken down as 
fol lows: 

Detention appearances 1637 

Jurisdictional appearances 31 9** 

Dispositional appearances ^7^ 

Special appearances, citations, etc. 393 

The breakdown of the charges in the Juvenile Court that were 
handled by our deputies consisted of cases that might be classified 
as fol lows: 

Felonies 102 6 

Misdemeanors 1018 

Traffic violations 88 

Juvenile violations 137^ 

Last year we appeared on behalf of 3 minors charged with 

murder : 

1 was found guilty of first degree 

1 was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter 

1 was found not guilty 

There were 108 appeals made to the Superior Court Judge 
sitting in the Juvenile Court from decisions made by the referees. 

- 
The referee was sustained in 36 hearings 

The referee was overruled in 67 hearings 

5 appeals were withdrawn. 

Experience has proved that cases handled in the Juvenile 
Court are much more time consuming than those handled in the 
Hal 1 of Justice. 

We have serviced the Juvenile Court for many years before 
this year but not as adequately as we should have, again because 
of lack of personnel. We have needed additional personnel to re- 
present those individuals that the Welfare 6- Institutions Code 
require us to appear for. We have not had the services of an 
investigator nor proper office space allotted to our department. 

-20- 



Arising out of a study made by Professor Michael Wa1d of 
Stanford University Law School, the Mayor recently approved ad- 
ditional personnel and equipment for the Juvenile Court. This 
will make it possible for our office to properly and adequately 
service those we are called upon to represent in the Juvenile 
Court. 

The Mayor's approval will provide funds for the purchase of 
an automobile, necessary office equipment, an investigator, a 
social worker, a clerk-stenographer, together with 3 additional 
attorneys. 

During the next fiscal year, Superior Judge Francis W. Mayer 
is making arrangements to provide the Public Defender with ad- 
ditional office space and we will then be able to not only repre- 
sent minors in detention hearings, jurisdictional hearings and 
dispositional hearings but we will also be able to conform to the 
new legislation adopted providing for the Public Defender to rep- 
resent and handle dependency cases. The dependency law became 
effective in March of this year but because of lack of personnel, 
we have not been able to handle these cases. 

CASES WORKED ON BY OUR INVESTIGATORS IN 1971-72 

Felony cases investigated 552 

Misdemeanor cases investigated 93 

Juvenile cases investigated 12 

Cases investigated for other Public Defender offices 1*+ 

Subpeonas served 248 

Interviews 1399 

In addition, the Investigators performed the following ser- 
vices: 

Checked 72 medical and coroner records 
Searched 769 other records 
Furnished 82 diagrams or photos 

Among the many cases investigated were included the following: 

39 murders 

5 intents to commit murder 

1*+2 narcotic charges 

81 robberies 

h~} burglaries 

85 felonious assaults 

kS rapes 

10 kidnappings 

25 crimes against children 

25 grand theft charges 

26 automobile charges 

Performed many office and related services including probation 
ratters - nhotogra^hs - transporting witnesses and attorneys, 
kicking up office supplies, etc. 



RECAPITULATION OF CASES HANDLED AND APPEARANCES MADE 
Cases: 

Superior Court 

Conservatorship Hearings 

Felony Preliminaries 

Misdemeanors 
j r a f f ■ c 

Juveni 1e Court 

Total 
Appearances: 

Superior Court - Felonies 
Superior Court - Conservatorship 
Municipal Court - Felonies 
Municipal Court - Misdemeanors 
Municipal Court - Traffic 
Juvenile Court 

.-■-•-• 
total 

Estimated cost: 

Per Defendant - approximately 

Per Appearance - Approximately 

" ■ 

The cost per appearance does not take into consideration 
any of the interviews and conferences held by our deputies through- 
out the year in the county jail; the women's prison and the city 
orison to discuss the cases with the clients nor dees it consider 
any interviews by our investigation staff. It does not include 
first papers filed for rehabi 1 i tation, 1 ine-ups, or people who 
contacted the office for our services. 



. 



2699 

410 

6320 

14338 

4584 

3309 




31660 


8305 
496 

20855 

26532 

7994 

5698 




69880 


L 

23.00 




10.40 


| 



-22- 



• 



ACTUAL BUDGET EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1S-7W2 

•ermanent salaries $713,710. 

'emporary salaries 1,000. 

laintenance 6- Repair of Automotive Equipment 1,425. 

:ontractua1 Services 2,157. 

later ials S- Supplies 1,329. 

Jse of Employees Cars 384. 

'elephone Service 4, 500. 

.aw Books 920. 

Equipment 1,785. 

Expert Witness Fees 135. 

•"ixed charges - Dues 350. 

Total 727,695. 

PERSONNEL AND COMPENSATION EFFECTIVE July 1, 1972 

)ur office consists of the following personnel: 

Bi-weekly salary 

>ub1ic Defender $1254. 

:hief Attorney 983 -1195 

lead Attorney (1) 891 - 1084 

>rincipa1 Attorneys, Criminal (9) 829 - 1007 

>enior Attorneys, Criminal (13) 682 - 829 

"rial Attorneys, Criminal (4) 57*+ - 699 

investigators (3) 428 - 521 

lonfidential Secretary with legal training (1) 440 - 535 

.egal Stenographers (2) 291 - 354 

Senior Clerk-Typist (1) 284 - 345 

)1erk Stenographer (1) 270 - 329 

'Jerk Typist, full time (3) 258 - 313 

:lerk Typist, part time (2) 129 

Our office is paid on a bi-weekly basis, with 26 pay periods 
3 year. Many of our attorneys are at the top of their bracket 
as \^er the schedule above. The Investigators and the Confidential 
Secretary are all at the top bracket of their compensation. 



-23- 






. 












! 






I s 



• 












. 






ANNUAL REPORT 

^ PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 
OF SAN FRANCISCO 

JULY 1, 1972 TO JUNE 30, 1973 



THIS IS THE CENTENNIAL YEAR 
OF THE SAN FRANCISCO CABLE CAR 

v ISmB O 
<$ J I Tl O 







**** *#** 



& 



EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 

The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 33 of the Charter 
of the City and County of San Francisco, which reads as follows: 

"Section 33: ... He shall immediately, upon the request of a defendant who is 
financially unable to employ counsel, or upon order of the court, defend or give 
counsel or advice to any person charged with the commission of a crime." 

We also operate and are governed by Section 27706 and related sections of the Govern- 
ment Code of the State of California, in addition to Sections 600, 601. 602, 633, 634, 658, 
659, 700, 777 and 778 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. 



"LONG CLIMB TO THE TOP" 



THE CABLE CAR — that noisy, perky, archaic little 
contraption invented 92 years ago to climb San Francisco's 
steep hills — has now been declared a "National Historic 
Landmark." Not long ago the Cable Car was held in such 
contempt by City Hall accountants that its execution was 
decreed. Only the campaigning of a few zealots saved it. 
So this obsolete, inadequate, money-losing piece of last Cen- 
tury machinery has risen like a Horatio Alger hero, and now 
has become a tourist attraction that brings thousands of 
visitors and millions of dollars into the community. 

The moral is that sentiment has a value that is above 
dollars — and also a capacity for producing them. 



'Reader's Digest" — April 1965, page 10 



i 



JURISDICTION 

The Public Defender's office in San Francisco was the second 
Public Defender's office established in the State of California, 
which was established on October 15? 1921. We were one of the 
first Public Defender's offices in the State of California to 
represent indigent defendants in all phases of criminal proceed- 
ings on a large scale basis, including not only felony preliminary 
hearings and felonies but also all types of misdemeanor cases, as 
well as serious moving traffic violation cases, Juvenile Court 
cases, mentally ill cases, etc 

Our jurisdiction covers approximately one million people, 
which includes the population of the City and County of San 
Francisco plus those people from the Peninsula and the Bay Area 
who work and visit in San Francisco daily. 

DUTIES AND R E S_r^_N SJ_B LLiXJES 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and responsibility 
is to see that each defendant is granted a fair and impartial 
trial; that all of his constitutional rights are preserved under 
our Federal and State Constitutions and Appellate Court decisions. 

Part of our duties is to handle applications for persons who 
seek a pardon and restoration of civil rights by filing Certifi- 
cates of Rehabilitation when released from the State Prison, as 
set forth in Sections 4852.01 to 4852.2 of the Penal Code. 

The office also is handling an increasing number of requests 
for the sealing and expungement of criminal records. 

CALIFORNIA CONST I TUT I0N.AND GENERAL LAl.'S 

Recent decisions of the Federal and State Appellate Courts, 
in particular the United States Supreme Court, are making the 
constitutional right to counsel real and effective in both Federal 
and State Courts. 

UNIT COUNTING 

The unit of counting in our criminal statistics is the defen- 
dant, rather than the case or charge. If several cases on one 
individual are prosecuted during an overlapping time period, they 
are combined. When there are multiple cases or charges, a defen- 
dant is counted as dismissed or acquitted only if there are 
dismissals or acquittals on all such cases or charges. A defen- 
dant is counted as convicted when there is a convictTon on any 
one of a group of cases or charges, even if the conviction be for 
an uncharged lesser and included offense to any of the charged 
offenses. 



- 1 - 



THE "BURGER COURT", . \ 

Rights of accused. On criminal issues, there is more emphasis on 
the rights of society, less on the rights of accused individuals. 

For instance, the court held that defendants in criminal pro- 
ceedings are not entitled to have a lawyer present when prospective 
witnesses are shown photographs of the accused for identification 
prior to indictment. The decision blocked expansion of the Warren 
court's ruling that an indicted suspect is entitled to counsel at 
police lineups. 

Also, the court narrowed the range of constitutional challenges 
that prison inmates may bring against procedures that sent them to 
jail, ruling that a defendant who pleads guilty on advice of counsel 
may not later complain of constitutional defects that occurred before 
the plea was entered. In both of those cases, the vote was 6 to 3» 
with the "Liberals" dissenting. 

Another example of a harder line on the rights of suspects: The 
court held by a 5 to 4 vote that a person accused of a crime may not 
use entrapment as a defense, even if a law-enforcement agent provided 
the means for carrying out the crime. Justice l.'hite joined the Nixon 
appointees on this ruling. 

The 5 to 4 decision on obscenity - in which Justice White again 
voted with the Nixon bloc - was a move away from permissiveness. The; 
majority held that local community standards may be used to judge wha 
is obscene, not the previously set national standard. At the same 
time, the court rejected the 1957 definition that, to be legally ob- 
scene, material must be "utterly without redeeming social value." Th 
test now is whether the work has "serious literary, artistic, politi- 
cal or scientific value." 

SIX LEGAL EXPERTS SIZE UP THE COURT 

Fred E. Inbau , professor of criminal law at Northwestern Uni ver-j 
sity:"~ In contrast to the Warren court, the Burger court is coming 
back to a state of realism and is striking a better balance between 
individual civil liberties and the rights of law-abiding citizens to 
live in reasonable safety of life and limb. The Warren court was ex- 
cessively concerned with the rights of individuals accused or suspect 
ed of crimes, and the rights of the public at large were given only 
secondary consideration. 

Phi lip B. Kurland , professor of constitutional law at the Univer 
sity of Chicago; Editor of the "Supreme Court Review"; I am not sure 
what new directions the court is going to take. We know it is not 
going to follow the blueprints established by the Warren court. In 
the area of criminal law, it has refused to follow the implications c 
the Warren court decisions. It is less willing to interfere with cor 
victions on the basis of the search-and-seizure provisions of the 
Fourth Amendment. It has drastically cut down the right of what was 
once thought to be the classic form of jury trial. It has eliminatec 
the requirement of unanimous juries, as well as the requirement that j 
a jury be made up of twelve members. It has enhanced the right to a i 
speedy trial . 

-1A- 



But, generally, it is more prosecution-minded than the Warren 
court. 

Yale Kamisar, professor of law at the University of Michigan Lav.' 
School f In crimfnal procedure, the Burger court is weakening the 
landmark Warren court rulings. The most dramatice examples would be 
the lineup decisions. 

The Burger court, in a series of decisions, has gutted the Warren 
court rulings requiring thct counsel for the accused be present at 
pretrial identification proceedings. The court majority, msde up 
principally of Nixon appointees, has in effect cut down the impact of 
the Warren court's mi rarida - or confession - ruling. 

My own feeling is that if all the members of the Warren court had 
stayed on, there would also have been a cutting down because of the 
mood of the country. There is a great hostility toward continued ex- 
pansion of the rights of the accused. 

I think the future strategy of the Burger court is not to over- 
rule the Warren court's criminal holdings but to cut them down and 
weaken thern. 1 1 wi 1 1 also give the lower courts more leeway to evade 
the original Warren court decisions in various ways. 

Harold Green , professor of Constitutional Law at George Washing- 
ton University Law School: The present Supreme Court is showing a 
trend toward less judicial activism than the Warren court. It has a 
greater willingness to accept the autonomy of the states in making 
various kinds of policy decisions; a greater willingness generally to 
accept legislative judgments, both on the federal and state level. 

Loui s H. Pol lak, Professor of Constitutional law at Yale Univer- 
sity Law School ; I don't see any wholesale overruling of the Warren 
court decisions but rather a halt in momentum. 

In a general sense, we are seeing that the Nixon appointees are 
not eager to push forward with the procedural protection in criminal 
cases which their predecessors had pushed to a pretty advanced stage. 



-IB- 



FELONY CASES HAND LED IN SUPERIOR COURT 

Pending cases - 1971-72 88 

New cases 2 1 88 

Total JTjZ 

Appearances made 8078 

Charges filed hO^k 

Persons represented in conservatorship hearings ^07 

Appearances made 530 

Habeas Corpus writs filed in these cases ]k 
(not included in above figures) 

The Superior Court cases arise as follows: 

Held to Answer in Municipal Court 

Taken over from Private Counsel after held to answer in 

Municipal Court. 

Indicted by Grand Jury 

Certified from Municipal Court on negotiated pleas 

Certified under I368--PC 

Certified under 3050-51 W & I Code 

Returned to Superior Court under Sec. 1372 PC 

Returned to Superior Court under Sec. 3053 W &■ I 

Returned from Department of Corrections 

Returned from California Rehabilitation Center 

Motions made to modify probation 

Many miscellaneous motions made in the Municipal Court 

Returned on Bench- Warrants 

Special motions - writs and other special appearances. Special 

appearances made at the request of the Superior Court Judges. 

Many motions were made by the District Attorney's office 
to revoke probation when other charges were filed against the 
defendant. These are considered as part of the case and not 
counted as new cases by our office. 

In the last fiscal year there was a reduction of major 
felony cases handled by our office in the Superior Court as 
well as in the Municipal Court. This must be attributed to a 
reduction of crime in San Francisco and the number of arrests 
made by the San Francisco Police Department. 

This is also reflected in the considerable drop in the case 
load on the Master Calendar in the Superior Court and the indiv- 
idual average case load of our Superior Court Deputies. Our — 
deputies now have more time to concentrate on their cases, re- 
quest more thorough investigations, make motions and prepare 
for trial . 

-2-~ 



[lAIJl-DJSPOSJXLON OF SUPEnj pj;_COUR.T CA$ ES 

Defendant plead guilty 800 

Defendant plead guilty, lesser included offenses 92 

Defendant found guilty 69 

By jury - 60 By court - 9 

Defendant found not guilty - insanity 6 

Defendant found not guilty 8 

By jury - 8 

Defendants dismissed - mostly under 995 PC Motions 107 
Taken over by Private Counsel - usually after several or 

more appearances by Deputy Public Defender 121 

Bench warrant issued - for failure to appear 2k 

Motion to expunge and seal - 1203 .':■ PC, 1772 1:6- 1 18 

Rehabi 1 i tation and Executive Clemency 2 

Cases still pending for sentencing or other disposition 35 

Referred back to Municipal Court 1^2 

Referred to Youth Guidance Center 19 

FINAL DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS 
P LEAD GUILTY - WERE FOUND GUILTY OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED 

Sentenced to State Prison for term prescribed by law 228 

Sentenced to County Jail 31 

Probation or suspended sentence with County Jail time 458 

Probation - mostly with fine or restitution 215 

Committed to Youth Authority hS 

Committed to Rehabilitation Center 200 

Committed to State Hospitals Ui-6 

Time served 9 

Pending for sentence 27 
Miscellaneous - sentence or disposition - deceased - 

bench warrants issued 23 

In analyzing the final disposition of Superior Court cases in 
which the Defendants either plead guilty or were found guilty, this 

year we found there was a greater number that were sentenced to 
state prison than has been the experience heretofore. 

PRIORS 

There was a considerable number of Defendants who plead guilty 
or were found guilty this year with priors, some with several priors 
In all, 610 Defendants had prior convictions and, at the time of 
sentencing, 277 Defendant's priors were stricken. 



-3- 



SP ECIAL MOTIONS AND APPEARANCES MADE WHILE HANDLING CASES 

Motions to consolidate 
Motions for discovery 
Motions to suppress evidence 
Motions to modify probation 
i io t i on s for new trial 
Motions to reduce bail 

Motions for probation - made last fiscal year 962 
Granted - 593 Denied - 192 Other disposition - 177 
Motions under Section 1360 PC 
Motions under Sections 1016-27PC 
Motions under Section 1 203 ■> 3 PC 
Motions under Sections 3050-51 W6-I Code 
Miscellaneous motions under many sections of the Penal Code 



Most of the motions listed above are nov; required by the court 
to be made in writing rather than being made verbally, which for majy 
years was the practice here in San Francisco. This is particularly 
true insofar as motions for discovery, reduction of bail, to suppre|s 
evidence, for new trial, to dismiss under Section 995 of the Penal 
Code are concerned., Many other motions are made from time to time 
by the deputies that are verbal motions and are not shown on this 
report. 



MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

Most of the felony charges filed against the defendants last 
year were under the following code sections: 

Major Health and Safety Code sections including narcotic and mari- 
juana: 

11500 (now 11350 - possession of narcotics or dangerous drugs); 

11501 (nov/ 11352 - sale of narcotics or dangerous drugs) ; 
11530 (now 11357 - possession of marijuana) 

- Burglary 

- Robbery 

- Felonious assault 

- Receiving or concealing goods obtained 
through theft or extortion 

- Grand theft 
VC - Theft and unlawful driving or taking 

a vehicle 



Section 


*:-59 


PC 


Section 


211 


PC 


Section 


245 


PC 


Section 


k$6 


PC 


Section 


i:S7 


PC 


Section 


10051 



-4- 



MURDER CASES HANDLED 1972-73 
This fiscal year we handled and appeared in 3^ murder cases. 

2 found guilty of first degree 

3 found guilty of second degree 
5 plead guilty to second degree 
2 found guilty of manslaughter 
9 plead guilty to manslaughter 

2 returned from hospital 

One of these found sane and case dismissed 

One of these found incompetent and sent to Napa 

k transferred to Private Counsel 

2 still pending for disposition 

1 found not gui 1 ty 

h Speical Appearances made on appointment by the 
court for modification of parole or sentence 

Those transferred to Private Counsel were only after many appear- 
ances made by our deputies. 

FOREIGN VISITORS 

In conjunction with the San Francisco Reception Center, Depart- 
ment of State, we have been participating during the past several 
years in the Education and Cultural Exchange Program of the Depart- 
ment of State. 

The purpose of the program is to better international relations 
by having individuals selected by the American embassy make a tour of 
study and observation which experience wi 1 1 result in favorable atti- 
tudes towards the United States by the individual and his countrymen. 

During the past year we again had the pleasure of receiving many 
representatives from foreign countries v/ho expressed a desire and 
interest in visiting our office. As part of their orientation, we 
not only explain the operation and function of the Public Defender's 
office, but take them to the courts where they meet with the various 
judges and observe the courts in session. 

The Reception Center has indicated that their visit to our of- 
fice is considered by many to be the highlight of their tour and, as 
a result, there is a constantly increasing demand for a visit to our 
office. 



APPEALS AND WRITS 

During the last fiscal year our office filed briefs in the Dis- 
trict Court of Appeal on 15 cases for Writs of Mandate or Prohibition 
and for several Writs of Habeas Corpus. 



-5- 



RECORD OF FELONY CASES HAN DLED IN THE MUN I C IP AL C OURT 

Defendants represented Mf2 8 

Charges filed against defendants 79&5 

Number of appearances made by deputies 13193 

DISPOSITION__OF FELONY CAStS HANDLE_D_JN J'HE MUNICIPAL COURTS 

n*1d to Answer " 1 179 

Dismissed or Discharged * 5^7 

Taken over by Private Counsel 1^52 

Indicted by Grand Jury 18 

Certified to Superior Court for sentence 3& 

Fugitives Appeared for 79 

Charges reduced to Misdemeanors 815 

Referred to Juvenile Division (Minors) 10 

Certified to Superior Court under 13 68 PC 3^ 

Failed to Appear - Bench Warrants issued 189 

Pending cases 32 

Other miscellaneous dispositions 35 

*Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants 
were dismissed or discharged, are cases where, after a court 
hearing, the judge found the evidence insufficient to find the 

defendant guilty, and therefore dismissed the charges. 

REDUCED CHARGES 



The ucual procedure on reduced charges is that the defendant,! 
at the municipal court felony hearing, enters a negotiated plea or j 
is found guilty of a lesser included offense, to wit, a mi sdemeanoi 
Last year 815 defendants were either found guilty or plead guilty 
to a misdemeanor and were disposed of as follows: 

Sentenced to County Jai 1 112 

Probation with County Jail 292 

County Jail - 1 day suspended 2k 
Suspended sentence with probation (mostly with fine or 

restitution) 372 

Miscellaneous - Time served etc. 15 

Last year 53% of the felony cases in the municipal court 
handled by our office were reduced to misdemeanors or dismissed. 

Only 40% of the felony cases were Held to Answer to the 
Superior Court for disposition. 



-6- 






SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE 
ADOPTS A CHANGE IN HANDLING FELONY CASES 

In order to accomplish more effective representation and utili- 
zation of staff one of the most dramatic and redeeming achievements 
If the Public Defender during the past year has been the reorganiza- 
tion involving representation of defendants charged with the 
commission of a felony. 

One criticism directed toward all Public Defender offices is that 
.he representation is impersonal with representation provided by mul- 
tiple attorneys handling one defendant. 

Heretofore it was impossible to assign one c'torn^y to one client 
To do so would mean doubling or tipling the staff which, of '.ourse, 
ould be an economical impossibility. 

Attorneys were assigned to Courts and all defendants appearing In 
-.1st Court were represented by the attorney so assigned for the rep- 
esentation necessary during that particular stage of the proceedings, 
■ is the case progressed to another Court, the deputy assigned to thai: 
particular Court would provide the representation required. This is 
called horizontal representation. 

In San Francisco two important developments occurred. Several 
ears ago the Criminal Division of the Superior Court established the 
aster Calendar and during the past year the Municipal Court '-eor- 
sanized its procedure respecting felony cases. 

In the Superior Court, prior to the establishment of the Master 
alendar Court, informations and indictments were assigned to Criminal 
departments on a rotation basis and each Court handled its own cases 
vom arraignment through all stages of proceedings to final disposi 
.ion. Thus deputies were assigned to a particular Court and handled 
j i] cases in that Court. 

With a Master Calendar Court all cases are assigned to this Court 
L'Pd all proceedings prior to trial are handled here and on trial date 
a-e transferred to a Superior Court for trial. As a result all depu- 
tes assigned to Superior Court proceedings operated cut of the Mas 1 '. 
blender Court, receiving cases on a rotation basis, continuously 
whether on trial or not. 

Prior to its recent reorganization the Municipal Court had In its 
-rininal Division a number of general Courts which, in addition to its 
icrmal misdemeanor cases, had felony cases assigned to them on a rota- 
tion basis which stayed in that Court through preliminary hearing and 
heir! to answer were then transferred to the Superior Court. Depu- 
ties were assigned to a particular Municipal Court and they hand Jed 
ill proceedings there. Heavy caseloads prevented effective rotation 
>f deputies handling a Superior Court case and those handling Prelim- 
inary Hearings. The first change in the Municipal Court in the 
Kindling of felony cases occurred with the establishment of a felony 
v raignment Court, Department 19 f from which cases were trier assigned 

-7- 



to the general Courts for Preliminary Hearing. Although this allowed 
for experienced deputies to be assigned to the arraignment Court for 
early screening and evaluation prior to assignment to a general Court 
it did not afford opportunity to eliminate the difficulties of the 
horizontal method of representation. 

In January of 1973 reorganization of the Municipal Courts oc- 
curred in the handling of felony and misdemeanor cases. The arraign- 
ment Court was retained but, instead of general Courts handling felon 
matters, three full time Courts and one part time Court were set up t 
hear only Preliminary Hearings referred from the arraignment Court on 
a rotation basis. 

This reorganization respecting the handling of felony cases in 
Municipal Court provided us with the opportunity of changing from a 
horizontal method of representation to a vertical method of represen-l 
tation. Now one deputy handles the case from Preliminary Hearing 
through disposition in the Superior Court, something we have contin-l 
uously strived for but always found impossible of accomplishment. 

We accomplished the change of representation in felony cases in' 
the following manner. Although the caseload remained the same, the 
deputies previously handling Preliminary Hearings were no longer re- 
quired to be locked into a Municipal Court. These deputies were 
experienced and fully qualified to try Superiour Court cases but 
because of the existing problem could not be assigned except in emerj 
gency situations to try cases in the Superior Court. 

This meant that the expertise and experience of many deputies 
could not be fully utilized on a continuing basis. On the other hanj, 
we had the deputies who had been regularly assigned to trials in 
Superior Court who because of the existing situation never returned b 
the Municipal Court to handle Preliminary Hearings, thus not fully 
utilizing their experience at this stage of the proceedings. 

Our solution consisted of pooling these two sets of deputies ar 
forming teams of two deputies each. One team was assigned to the 
arraignment Court in Municipal Court. One team was assigned to run-i 
ning the Master Calendar in Superior Court and also picking up the 
new matters to which the Public Defender was appointed for the first 
time. This team also carries a full caseload because of a rotation 
schedule although it does not handle Preliminary Hearings during it; 
assignment to the Master Calendar Court. 

The remaining teams allowed for the assignment of two teams to 
each of the three Municipal Courts conducting Preliminary Hearings. 

Advance scheduling was made possible by assigning each team al- 
ternate days and each team member alternates team days. Normally 
then each deputy would know his future Preliminary Hearing Court da 
and the case assigned immediately upon transfer from the arraignmen 
Court. Theoretically the deputy would then represent that parti cul 
client to final disposition in the Superior Court. As much as poss 
ble the team members familiarize themselves with each other's cases 
and interview the defendant together since they were to be backup f 
each other. 



-8. 






The reason for backup between team members is obvious because 
during the various stages of proceedings the deputies must be present 
in Municipal Court for Preliminary Hearings and in any of the eight 
Superior Courts handling criminal cases. Arraignments, motions, 
trials, sentencing, thus the need for backup with a deputy familiar 
with the case. 

The morale of those deputies who were qualified to try Superior 
Court cases on a continuing basis but could not do so has greatly im- 
proved and their professional pride enhanced. At the Preliminary 
Hearing the deputy sees the main witnesses, can cross-examine them 
and evaluate their testimony, and since representation will be con- 
tinous early investigation and strategy properly planned. 

Defendants do equate proper representation with continuous repre- 
sentation and properly so. Knowing and seeing the same deputy at 
every stage of the proceeding is reassuring to the defendant and does 
embue him with the feeling that his attorney does care and is doing 
everything he can for him. 

These improvements of course have been made possible by the ded- 
ication and effectiveness of the deputies in the Public Defender's 
office, who are making sure that our plan wi 1 1 succeed and to accom- 
plish our goal of "equal justice under law." 

It must be pointed out that these achievements are being accom- 
plished within the framework of our existing staff. Our caseload per 
deputy is still the highest in the State and our cost per case the 
lowest in the State. In spite of our heavy caseload we are elated 
that vertical representation has become a reality for us in felony 
cases. 



_Q_ 



HANDLING OF Ml S D EMEANOR CASE S, _ON JSEHALF OF INDIGENT DEFENDANTS 
S_UPi;E;-C COU..T llECOGj J.l ZES. .M LSDEj ••lEAiJAj !T ' S rd£liLJ^i^lJSEL 

On June 12, 1>72, the United States Supreme Court handed down 
momentous decision in A r ner s i nc[e r v, Ijamli n. The petitioner in the 
case was a Florida defendant convicted in a state court of a misde- 
meanor. Me argued that at trial he should have been appointed coun 
as he had requested. The United States Supreme Court agreed. The 
Court's opinion, written by Mr. Justice Douglas, stated that counse 
must be provided in any criminal prosecution where there is a possij 
bility of incarceration, and that if the accused is not represented 
by counsel, imprisonment may not be imposed. Concurring opinions 
were written by Chief Justice Burger and by Justices Brennan, Powellj 
and uehnquist. There were no dissenting opinions . 

This case finally determined the right of indigent defendants jd 
appointment of counsel in a misdemeanor case under the Sixth Amend-! ] 
ment of the U. S. Constitution, when the question of the impositiorj 
of a jail sentence was possible. 

In its ruling, the Court, in an opinion by Justice Douglas, dil 
not tie the requirement of counsel to the maximum punishment provicf 
by statute. Instead, the Court held the, "absent a knowing and in- 
telligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, '■!.-. 
whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was 
represented by counsel at his trial." 

It is interesting to note that the Public Defender's office ir 
the City and County of San Francisco, under the leadership of Edwaij 
T. Mancuso, the Public Defender, in 19!^ when Mr. Mancuso was ap- 
pointed by the then Mayor, Elmer E. Robinson, he saw the necessity 
representing indigent defendants in misdemeanor cases. Mr. Mancus< 
urged the importance of representation in misdemeanor cases, parti* 
larly because of the fact that the persons involved were usually 
young persons, appearing before the court for the first time. Mr. 
Mancuso, in his report to Mayor Elmer E. f:obinson in February 1955> 
requested deputies to handle misdemeanor cases in the Municipal Corl 

Thus, the San Francisco Public Defender's office was one of te 
first offices in the nation to see and recognize the necessity of^ 
appointing counsel to represent indigent defendants involved in mij- 
demeanor cases - 18 years before this right was recognized by the 
U. S. Supreme Court and also many years before it was recognized b 
the Appellate Courts of the State of California. 



The judges in the Municipal Courts of the City and County of 
Francisco have always felt that the representation of indigents in 
misdemeanor cases is an important part of "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE 
LAV/ 11 and have been very liberal in the appointment of Deputy Publi 
Defenders to represent their interest when appearing before them, 
which is one of the reasons why the Public Defender's office in tl 
City and County of San Francisco year after year represents many i 
digent defendants before the Municipal Courts each year. 

-10- 






Approximately 9 years ago when San Francisco Public Defender 
Edward T„ Mancuso served as Chairman of the Committee on Defense of 
Indigent Persons, a Sub-Committee of the Criminal Lav/ Section of the 
American Bar Association, under his leadership the Committee approved 
a resolution which was approved by the House of Delegates of the 
American Bar Association as follows? 

RESOLUTION 

The Cub-Cornrni ttee on Defense of Indigent Persons submits the 
following Resolution for adoption: 

RESOLVED: That the Committee on Defense of Indigent Persons 
supports as a fundamental principle of law the concept that all indi- 
gent persons are entitled, as a matter of constitutional right, to 
have adequate, effective, independent legal counsel provided to 
insure the safeguarding of his constitutional rights in all criminal 
matters and when any criminal accusation is brought against them, and 

That said counsel should- always be provided to defend all crim- 
inal accusations, at the misdemeanor level as well as in felony cases 
and 

well 



That counsel should also be provided for indigent j 
as for their parents or quardians, if indioent. 



uveni les as 



BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Criminal Law Section of the 
American Bar Association is urged to adopt this Resolution and to 
recommend to the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association 
that similar action be taken by them, 

EDWARD T„ MANCUSO, Chairman 
Committee on Defense 
of Indigent Persons 



DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 



1972-73 



Number of defendants represented 12,69^ 

Charges filed against defendants 18,9^9 

Number of appearances made by deputies 21,952 

Misdemeanor cases include persons arrested or cited for misde- 
meanors committed in San Francisco. They appear before one of the 
general criminal departments of the municipal court where their dis 
position is determined by; 

Guilty pleas, Nolo contendre pleas - Submission on the Police 
report - Court trial - Transferred to the jury department - Dis- 
missed, etc. 

During the year a little over 7% of the defendants assigned tc 
our office were eventually taken over by Private Counsel after sev 
eral appearances by our deputies. 



The remainder were disposed of as follows: 



Percentages 



Plead guilty 63.0% 

Found gui 1 ty 2.5% 

Dismissed or found not guilty after hearing 25.0% 
Miscellaneous disposition including bench 

warrants issued, Probation revoked, etc. 9.5% 

DISPOSITION OF MISDE MEANOR CASES 
IN WHICH DEFENDANTS EITHER PLEAD GUILTY, V/E RE FOUND GUILTY, OR 

OTHERWISE SENTENCED 

Percentages 

Probation granted with suspended sentence (mostly 

with fine or restitution) 64.5% 

Committed to County Jail (some with one day sus- 
pended, some with probation) 22.0% 

Probation or suspended sentence 3.0% 

Sentenced to fine or jail 5.5% 

Other miscellaneous disposition including hospital- 
ization, commitments to Youth Authority, issuance 
of bench warrants, etc. 5.0% 






MUNICIPAL COURT JURY TRIALS 

We continue to have considerable demands for jury trials -in 
the municipal court from defendants charged with serious mis- 
demeanors and major traffic violations. 

Most of them are disposed of without having a jury trial 
by negotiated pleas or court trials. 

Experience will show that when a jury trial is waived, the 
defendant receives either a suspended sentence or a light sentence 

There were approximately 100 jury trials in the last fiscal 
year. 33 defendants were found not guilty; 17 trials resulted 
in hung juries and 5 resulted in mis-trials. The remainder 
were found guilty. 

The deputies assigned to the jury department are experienced 
and very proficient in disposing of these cases to the satis- 
faction of the defendant which is the reason most all of them 
waive their demand for a jury trial. By waiving a demand for 
jury trial and disposition of the cases as mentioned herein,— 
considerable expense and time is saved as jury trials are ex- 
pensive. 

SEALING & EXPUNGEMENT OF RECORDS - MUNICIPAL £ SUPERIOR COURTS 
Sealing under Section 851 .7 PC 50 

Sealing under Section 1203.1+5 PC - 95 

Sealing under Section 1203.45 PC - McMahon 8 



Total 



Expungement under Section 1203.4 PC 
Expungement under Section 1203.4a PC 
Expungement under Section 1772 WS-I Code 



153 


259 

60 

2 



321 



850 



OTHER-ITEMS HANDLED 
Applications for our services - Financial statements 4298 
Rejected or referred to pr+vate attorneys 746 

Other office visits for help - miscellaneous matters 
Interviews with clients in City Prison and County Jail 
and office Approximately 8500 

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER 
There were a considerable number of defendants charged with nar- 
cotic charges which is also recognized by the fact that in the 
last fiscal year we had many defendants referred to the California 
Rehabilitation Center because of their narcotic addiction under 
Section 3051 of the Welfare & Institutions Code. 

-13- 



TR AFFIC CASES - MIS DEME ANORS INVOLVING M OTOR VEHICLES 

1972-73 

Defendants represented in traffic cases 3^33 

Number of appearances made by deputies 8408 

Charges f i led 8102 

In the last fiscal year we had a small reduction in the 
number of defendants we were called upon to represent in traffic 
cases. The reason for this reduction was because we withdrew 
our deputy, because of lack of personnel, who was serving Traffic 
Department 16 which we no longer service, except on special 
occasions. 

It was interesting to note that although we represented 
less defendants in traffic cases there were more charges filed 
and more appearances made than last year. 

The majority of traffic cases were disposed of as follows: 

Plead guilty or found guilty 70% 

Found not guilty or dismissed 1 8% 

Miscellaneous disposition such as Private 

Counsel, Revoke Probation, Modify sentences etc 12% 

Of the many charges filed against the defendants, the 
two most often filed were: 

Section 23102 VC - Driving under the influence of alcohol 
or drugs; 

Section 14601 VC - Driving with suspended or revoked 
1 i cense. 

There were a considerable number of bench warrants issued 
against defendants for traffic citations last year, in addition 
many motions were made to revoke probation after defendants 
failed to appear or pay their fines when on probation to the 
court. 



-14- 



JUVENILE COURT DIVISION 



The San Francisco Public Defender has always operated under the 
philosophy that a person appearing before the Juvenile Court is en- 
titled to the same constitutional process as any other member of the 
community. The United States Supreme Court in 1967 expressed this 



phi losophy in a 
believe that no 
cedural justice 
counsel . 



landmark case known as In re Gault (307 U.S. 1). We 
single action holds more potential for achieving pro- 
for a child in Juvenile Court than the provision of 



The rights to confront one's accusers have significance for the 
overwhelming majority of the persons brought before the Juvenile 
Court only if they are provided with competent lawyers who can invoke 
those rights. 

The most informal and well intentioned of judicial proceedings 
are technical; few adults without legal training can influence them; 
certainly children cannot. 






Until very recently, budget restrictions have prohibited our of- 
fice from assigning enough attorneys to Juvenile Court to adequately 
handle the workload. In November 1970 funds were approved to provide 
two attorneys for the Juvenile Court Division to handle delinquency 
matters. However, that staffing precluded us from interviewing 
clients before they went to Court, except in the most serious cases, 
and it did not allow for representation of indigent parents in de- 
pendency cases. In 1972 we submitted a budget request for sufficient 
personnel to properly staff the Juvenile Court Division. In April 
1973 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and Mayor Joseph Alioto 
finally approved our request. We now have five attorneys, one in- 
vestigator and two secretaries assigned to the Juvenile Court 
Division. This increased personnel will result in a substantial 
affirmative effect upon the administration of justice in the Juvenile 
Court. 



The Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over any person under the 
age of lo who: 

A. Is in need of care because of home conditions 
or medical deficiencies; 

B. Has engaged in a pattern of delinquent behavior 
short of criminal conduct; 

C. Who is delinquent due to a violation of criminal 
law or a Court order. 

There are three ways in which a minor may be brought before the 
Juvenile Court. First, upon apprehension by a police agency the 
minor and his parents may be issued a promise to appear before the 
Probation Officer. At the appearance before the Probation Officer, 
the minor and his parents are entitled to be represented by an attor- 
ney if they desire. Previously we did not have sufficient attorneys 



-15- 



to assign an attorney to those hearings; we are now able to provide 
an attorney when the minor or his parents so request. 



a promise to 



appear 
minor 



not 
wi th- 



Second, when the police neither issi 
release the minor from custody, the police must take the 
ou t unnecessary delay to Juvenile Hall, Immediately a Probation 
Officer evaluates the case as to whether the minor shall be released 
to his parents or detained pending a detention hearing. By Juvenile 
Court policy, the Public Defender is appointed immediately upon the 
incarceration of the minor. Each minor who is detained will be inter 
viewed by us prior to the first Court appearance. 

Third, the parents, school authorities, or social service agen- 
cies may bring the minor to the attention of the Juvenile Court, in 
which case the same procedures must be followed as when the police 
initiate the referral. 



During the last fiscal year, 
3,^57 persons before the Juvenile 



the Public Defender represented 
Court. 



THE DETENTION HEARING 



Upon delivery of the minor to Juvenile Hall, the Probation Offi- 
cer may release the minor, issue a promise to appear to the minor anc; 
release him, or detain the minor. The minor can be detained only 
when certain specific conditions exist. When the minor is detained, 
a petition mu st be filed in the Juvenile Court within a period of ^8 
hours after the time_of_ arrest, and a Court hear i no- must be held on 
judicial day follo winc 



i 1 inq of the petition, 



That initial Court hearing is known as a Detention Hearing. It 
may be heard before either a Judge or Commissioner of the Superior 
Court. The minor must be represented by an attorney unless he intel-; 
ligently waives his right to counsel. Our attorney staff appeared 1 
1,601 Detention Hearings last year. 



Unless it appears thats 

1. The minor has violated an order of the Juvenile Court; 

2. Has escaped from a commitment of the Juvenile Court; 



It is a matter 
the protection 
of another than 



of immediate 
the minor 
the minor be 



of 



and urgent necessity for 
or the person or property 
detained; 






h.. 



That the minor is likely to flee the jurisdiction of 
the Court. The Court must release the minor from 
custody. Last year approximately 51% of the minors 
were given release orders by either the Judge or 
Commissioner when they were represented by the Pub- 
lic Defender at Detention Hearings. 



-16- 



.. 



THE JUR I SD I CT I OiiAL HEAR I NG 

A Court hearing to determine whether the allegations of the 
petition are true must be held within 15 judicial days when the minor 
is in custody, or when the "mi nor is not detained, the hearing m ust be 
held within 30 judicial days of the filing of th e pe tition . 

Last year the Public Defender's Division made 3?5S1 appearances 
at jurisdictional hearings. 

The jurisdictional hearing begins by the petition being read to 
the minor and his parents. The minor is then asked whether he admits 
or denies the allegations. When the minor admits the allegations, 
the disposition phase begins. When the minor denies the allegations, 
the case becomes a contested matter, and the prosecution (either the 
District Attorney or the Probation Officer) has the burden of pre- 
senting sufficient competent evidence to prove the allegations beyond 
a reasonable doubt in criminal allegations, and by a preponderance of 
the evidence in non-criminal allegations. During the last year 1,1 80 
contested cases were taken to hearing by the Deputy Public Defenders; 
approximately 33% of the petitions were contested when the minor was 
represented by the Public Defender. 

After hearing the testimony and accepting other evidence, the 
Courts make a finding as to whether ^e allegations of the petition 
are true. The Court may take one of three alternatives, each of which 
must be predicated upon the evidence; 

First, the Court may find that the allegations are true, and sus- 
tain the petition. Of the cases contested by the Public Defender, 
approximately 21% resulted in the petition being sustained as filed. 

Second, the Court may find that a lesser and necessarily included 
act has been committed rather than the conduct which was alleged in 
the petition. Of the contested cases, approximately 33/ / resulted in 
the Court sustaining the petition on the basis of a lesser act having 
been committed. 

Third, the Court may dismiss the petition entirely, or in lay- 
man's terms find the person not guilty, which was the result in 
approximately kj% of the contested cases. 



THE DISPOSITION HEARING 

V/hen the Court sustains the petition, the next phase of the Juv- 
enile Court procedure is known as the Disposition Hearing. The Deputy 
Public Defenders made 2,170 appearances at Disposition Hearings last 
year. 

The disposition in a Juvenile Court proceeding is analgous to 
the sentence in a criminal (adult) Court proceeding. The greatest 

_ 1-7 



practical difference is that the Juvenile Court is under much less 
statutory pressure to exact social retribution than is the adult Cour 

The basic purpose of the Juvenile Court Law is to secure for eac 
minor under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court such care and guid 
ance preferably in the child's own home, as will serve the spiritual, 
emotional, mental and physical welfare of the minor, and the best 
interests of the Community and the State . 

Before deciding what treatment to prescribe for the minor, the 
Court must make three preliminary decisions; 

First, it must decide whether to take further action. Nothing 
in the law requires, even after a petition has been sustained, that 
anything need be done to or for the minor. Thus, the Court may dis- 
miss the matter, take no further action, or conditionally schedule a 
further hearing on the disposition. Practically speaking, this ap- 
proach is utilized by the Probation Officers by not even filing a 
petition in the first place, and is the result of the Deputy Public 
Defenders either interviewing the minor immediately upon being incar-| 
cerated, or the Deputy Public Defender being present at the Promise 
to Appear Hearing. 

Roughly 50% of the referrals to the Probation Officer are dis- 
posed of without the filing of a petition. 

The second preliminary decision the Court must make is whether 
obtain a detailed diagnosis of the minor's mental health and treatmei 
possibilities. San Francisco has established a Study and Evaluation 
Program for Boys at Hidden Valley Ranch School, which is located abo 
fifty miles south of the City in the S^n Mateo mountains. The evalu 
ation program consists of a very comprehensive testing and evaluatio 
of the psychological, academic and social factors. The commitment i 
for a maximum of ninety days, and provides a basis upon which the 
future care and supervision of the minor can be predicated. 

In the case of girls, local psychiatric and academic facilities, 
are utilized. Upon completion of the ninety day evaluation, the min 
is returned to Court for further disposition. 

The third preliminary decision to be made by the Court is whethr 
to declare the child a ward and thus place a statutory label on the 
minor. When the Court deciVos not to label the minor, the only fins 
disposition, other than to do nothing at all, is to place the minor 
probation for a period not longer than six months. Such a disposition 
is not only to the distinct advantage of the minor, but also matericj- 
ly diminishes the paper workload of the Probation Officer and the 
Juvenile Court let alone the Deputy Public Defenders. 

When the Court decides that the minor should be labeled, the al 
ternatives open for future care and supervision are vastly broadenec 
In those cases where the Court finds that the minor is in need of ci 
because of unfit home conditions or medical deficiencies (Section 6( 
of the Juvenile Court Law) the Court may adjudge the minor a Depends 
Chi Id of the Court. 

-18- 



n 



If the Court has found that the minor has engaged in a pattern of 
delinquent conduct short of criminal activity (Section 601 of the 
Juvenile Court Lav/), or that the minor is delinquent because of crim- 
inal activity or violation of a Court order (Section 602 of the 
Juvenile Court Law), the minor may be adjudged a Ward of the Court, 

It is the intention of the law to protect Dependent Children, and 
thus the label placed upon them is not supposed to be a deterent to 
rehabi 1 i tation. On the other hand, . since the label used for truants 
and those beyond the control of their parents (Section 601 of the 
Juvenile Court Lav/) is the same as for murderers, burglars, rapists, 
armed robbers and those in violation of the curfew ordinance (Section 
602 of the Juvenile Court Lav/), the consequences of being labeled a 
Ward can be very serious. Thus the Deputy Public Defenders make every 
effort to avoid the declaration of Wardship. 

If the minor has been labeled either a Ward or Dependent Child, 
the Court acquires jurisdiction to limit the parent's control over the 
minor. This includes the possible removal of the child from the 
custody of the parents. But the Juvenile Court Law allows for removal 
from the custody of the parents only when the welfare or safety of the 
minor requires, or when the safety and protection of the public cannot 
be adequately safeguarded without the child being removed from his 
home. Moreover, the minor cannot be removed from his home unless a 
hearing is had and evidence introduced in support of the contention 
for removal . 

When the determination is made by the Court that the minor should 
be removed from his home, the Dependent Child (Section 600 cases) may 
be placed in a foster home or in a private or public institution es- 
tablished to care for needy and neglected children. The non-criminal 
delinquent (Section 601 cases) may be placed in the same placements as 
the Dependent Child, or in a juvenile home or ranch. The Ward who is 
found to have committed criminal acts or violated a Court order (Sec- 
tion 602 cases) may be placed in the same type of facilities as the 
other children, and additionally may be committed to the California 
Youth Authority. 

In practice in San Francisco, a foster home or ranch school com- 
mitment is usually attempted before commitment to the Youth Authority, 
the exception being for children that require specialized treatment 
that is available only at the Youth Authority facilities. However, 
when the child is removed from his home, the law requires that the 
care and discipline provided must be the equivalent of that which 
should have been given by the parents. 

RECAPITULATION 

APPEARANCES MADE BY PUBLIC DEFENDER IN JUVENILE COURT 

At Detention Hearings 1,601 

At Jurisdiction Hearings. 3,5Gl 

At Disposition Hearings ...... 2, 1 70 

TOTAL 7,352 



ALLEGATIONS HANDLED TO CONCLUSION BY PUBLIC DEFENDER IN 
JUVENILE COURT 



Description of Allegation 

Dependency (Since May 1, 1973) 

Beyond Parent Control 

Truant 

Modification of Court Order 

Violation of Court Order 

Criminal Delinquency - total 

Crimes Against Administration 

of Justice 
Crimes Against the Person 
Crimes Against Public Decency 
Crimes Against Property 
Narcotics 
Weapons 
Curfew 

Vehicle Code Violations 
Drunk Driving 
City Ordinance, Federal Laws, 

Fish 6- Game, etc. 

TOTAL NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS FILED 



Number of Allegations 

45 
693 
198 
244 
255 
2,109 

83 

471 

152 

902 
113 

39 
46 

157 
11 



135 






5,653 



SPECIAL NOTE CONCERNING JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS? 

The recently promulgated calendaring rules of Court is wor 
ing out much better than initially expected. The effects are 
several: the minor is spending less time in detention, thus th! 
cost to the taxpayer is reduced; the unnecessary appearance of 
witnesses and pol icemen .has been eliminated, thus eliminating ti 
inconvenience and cost factors; the Courts are running on a cal; 
endared basis so that all persons concerned can more easily pic! 
their schedules; and more time can now be devoted to the dispo- 
sitional aspects of each case. 



Jem 

■ 






isti 



-2 0- 






INVESTIGATIONS 

The following is a list of cases investigated during the 
year 1972-73. 

Felony cases investigated 761 

Misdemeanor cases investigated 401 

Juvenile cases investigated 115 

Cases investigated for other Public Defender offices 68 

Subpoenas served 186 

Interviews conducted 933 

In addition, the investigators performed the following 
services : 

Checked 78 medical and coroner records 
Searched 323 other records 
Furnished 71 diagrams or photos 
Furnished 25 tape recordings of statements 

Among the many cases investigated were included the following 

35 Murders 

5 Manslaughters 

3 Intents to commit murder 
7^+ Narcotics charges 
53 Robberies 
20 Burglaries 
12 Felonious assaults 
19 Rapes 

5 Kidnappings 

10 crimes against children 

1 1 Grand theft charges 
18 Automobile charges 

2 Arsons 

We now have 5 investigators. Three are employed as permanent 
employees.. Two have been working some time under the Emergency 
Employment Act of 1971. 



The investigators performed many office and related services 
including probation matters; photographs; transporting witnesse-s 
and attorneys; picking up office supplies, and the usual admin- 
istrative duties. 



_?n a_ 



ACTUAL BUDGET EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1972-73 

Permanent salaries $ 743,242. 

Permanent salaries - Revenue sharing 9,931. 

Manpower - EEA 93,490. 

Temporary salaries 1,190. 

Maintenance and Repair of Automotive Equipment 800. 

Contractual Services 6,198. 

Materials and Supplies 1,885. 

Use of Employees Cars 160. 

Telephone Service 4,300. 

Law Books 750. 

Equipment - including Revenue sharing 5? 045. 

Expert Witness Fees 200. 

Fixed charges - Dues 500° 

TOTAL $ 867,691. 



PERSONN EL AND COMPEN SATION EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1973 

Our office consists of the following personnel: 

Bi-wwekly salary 

Publ ic Defender 

Chief Attorney 

Head Attorney (3) 

Principal Attorneys, Criminal (13) 

Senior Attorneys, Criminal (10) 

Trial Attorneys, Criminal (4) 

Attorneys, Criminal (2) EEA 

Investigators (5) 

Confidential Secretary with legal training (1) 

Legal Stenographers (2) 

Senior Clerk-Typist (1) 

Clerk Stenographer (2) 

Clerk Typist, full time (4) 

Clerk Typist, part time (1) 

Our office is paid on a bi-weekly basis, with 26 pay periods 
a year. Many of our attorneys are at the top of their bracket as 
per the schedule above. The permanent Investigators and the Con- 
fidential Secretary are all at the top bracket of their compensate 



$ 1,321 




1,058 - 


1,285 


959 - 


1,166 


891 - 


1 , 034 


733 - 


891 


619 - 


752 


521 




446 - 


542 


457 - 


555 


303 - 


368 


295 - 


359 


281 - 


342 


268 - 


326 


134 





-21- 






RECAPITULATION OF CASES HANDLED AND APPEARANCES MADE 



Cases 



Superior Court 
Conservatorship Hearings 
Felony Preliminaries 
Mi sdemeanors 
Traffic 
Juveni le Court 



Total 



Appearances 



Superior Court - Felonies 
Superior Court - Conservatorship 
Municipal Court - Felonies 



Municipal Court 
Municipal Court 
Juveni le Court 



- Misdemeanors 

- Traffic 



Total 



2, 


,276 




407 


4, 


,428 


12, 


,694 


3, 


,833 


3, 


,457 



27,095 



8,078 

530 

13J93 

21,952 

8,408 

7,352 

59,513 



During the last fiscal year there was a drop in the number of 
defendants represented by our office in all classifications from 
31,660 to 27,095. In other words we were called upon to represent 
4,565 less defendants than we had in the preceding year. 

The report will show that most of these were in the misdemeanor 
field and the traffic court in that we now only service Department 14 
of the traffic' court. 



There was also a reduction in the number of appearances made in 
court by our deputies from 69,880 to 59,513, or 10,367 less appear- 
ances made in court. Again these were primarily in the misdemeanor 
courts because of the consolidation of courts and in the traffic 
court because of only serving one court. 

We do not show in the above figures the appearances made by our 
deputies or investigators in the city prison or the county jail that 
are made during the year, nor do these figures include the many con- 
ferences held during the year by our deputies with their clients in 
their offices to review their cases and in preparing the case for 
court hearing. 



-22- 



ANNUAL REPORT 



PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 



<^ 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



JULY 1, 1973 TO JUNE 30, 1974 

<£BA2V > 

* J T T 1 O 







^ FX M^ % 



^ 



EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 



The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 3.403 of the 
Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, which reads as follows: 

"Section 3.403: ... He shall immediately, upon the request of a defendant who is 
financially unable to employ counsel, or upon order of the court, defend or give 
counsel or advice to any person charged with the commission of a crime." 

We also operate and are governed by Section 27706 and related sections of the 
Government Code of the State of California, in addition to Sections 600, 601, 602, 
633, 634, 658, 659, 700, 777 and 778 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. 



This is the final Annual Report to be prepared and submitted by the Hon. Edward T. Mancuso 
as Public Defender of the City and County of San Francisco, upon his retirement this year after 
20 years of service. The staff of the Public Defender's office wish to take this opportunity to express 
appreciation to Mr. Mancuso for a most distinguished tenure as Public Defender. 

Although the term friendless has often been used to describe the many poor and unfortunates 
who find themselves accused of crime; in San Francisco the record will clearly show that the indigent 
always had a true friend, a champion of justice, in Public Defender Mancuso. On behalf of the 
citizens of San Francisco, his personal mandate in providing legal representation to the indigent has 
been to continually strive to make "equal justice under law" a reality. 

His leadership in the area of criminal justice has been reflected not only by an improvement in 
San Francisco's Public Defender's office, but also in the State of California and throughout the 
United States. 

When appointed Public Defender in 1954 by the then Mayor, Elmer E. Robinson, Mr. Mancuso 
saw the necessity of representing indigent defendants in misdemeanor as well as in felony cases. 
He immediately requested deputies to handle misdemeanor cases and thus the San Francisco Public 
Defender's office was "one of the first offices" in the nation to represent indigent defendants involved 
in misdemeanor cases. This was 18 years before this right was recognized by the U. S. Supreme 
Court in the momentous decision of Argersinger vs. Hamlin. 

Approximately 10 years ago when Mr. Mancuso was chairman of the committee on defense of 
indigent persons of the criminal law section of the American Bar Association, his committee 
approved a resolution stating that counsel should always be provided to defend all criminal 
accusations at the misdemeanor level as well as in felony cases. 

During his tenure as Public Defender, in addition to making his office one of the top Defender 
offices in the nation, he instituted an internship program for newly admitted attorneys and law 
students in 1960; he contributed numerous articles to legal publications; many years ago he advocated 
that the narcotic addict should be treated as a medical problem rather than a criminal problem; 
he served as the president of the Public Defender and Legal Aid Assn. of the State of California. 

Prior to being appointed Public Defender, Mr. Mancuso made his mark in the legislative area 
by serving for 10V2 years as a Supervisor of the City and County of San Francisco. During this 
period he was a member of the Board of Directors of County Supervisors of the State of California 
for over nine years, and served as its president during the term 1948-1949. He was also active in the 
National Assn. of County Officials and was set to serve as vice-president of that Association when 
he was appointed Public Defender. 

A deeply religious man, Mr. Mancuso is a member of the San Francisco Bible Club; an elder 
of Lakeside Presbyterian Church and a former trustee on its board. He is a charter member of his 
church and helped organize the establishment of the church and assisted in organizing the Protestant 
Layman Fellowship, becoming its first president; he also served as president of the Protestant 
Laymen Fellowship of San Francisco. 

Active in Masonic activities, Mr. Mancuso has had an outstanding record of service and been 
recipient of high honors, having served as Master of his lodge, and on Grand Lodge committees, 
and as Worthy Grand Patron of the Order of the Eastern Star in 1966. 

In addition to being very active in civic organizations, Mr. Mancuso also distinguished himself 
as a business man. He is the organizing president of Sports Center Corporation (bowling); and 
serves as an advisory member of the Imperial Savings and Loan Assn. in Northern California. He 
served for 15 years as secretary of Columbus Savings and Loan Assn., which he helped organize. 

Mr. Mancuso has received many civic awards: Two of his most cherished awards are the Star 
of Solidarity awarded to him by the Italian government for his outstanding services as an Italian- 
American, and the Civic Award of the Fraternal Order of Eagles for his contributions to the welfare 
of the community. 

Mr. Mancuso's many accomplishments could not have been achieved without the assistance and 
devotion of his lovely wife, the former Dorathy E. J. Fegan, and together they have formed an 
unbeatable team, dedicated in service to their community. 

We wish them continued health and happiness in their future endeavors. 

THE PUBLIC DEFENDER STAFF 

By Robert Nicco, 

Chief Deputy Public Defender. 



THE "FIRST PUBLIC DEFENDER" - "JESUS CHRIST" 

The book "Uranita", at page 1^62, informs us that during Jesus 's 
personal ministry while sojourning in Rome in the year 22 A.D., the 
following took place: 

Meeting a poor man who had been falsely accused, Jesus went with 
him before the magistrate and, having been granted special permission 
to appear in his behalf, made that superb address in the course of 
which he said, "Justice makes a nation great, and the greater a na- 
tion, the more solicitous will it be to see that injustice shall not 
befall even its most humble citizen. Woe upon any nation when only 
those who possess money and influence can secure ready justice before 
its courts! 

"It is the sacred duty of a magistrate to acquit the innocent as 
well as to punish the guilty. Upon the impartiality, fairness, and 
integrity of courts the endurance of a nation depends. Civil gov- 
ernment is founded on justice, even as true religion is founded on 
mercy. " 

The judge reopened the case, and when the evidence had been 
sifted, he discharged the prisoner. Of all Jesus' s activities dur- 
ing these days of personal ministry, this came the nearest to being 
a public appearance. 

F R IV A R D 

Prior to the appointment of Edward T. Mancuso as Public Defender, 
the San Francisco Bar Association designated a select committee to 
make a comprehensive study of the San Francisco Public Defender's 
Office, with the objective of improving the performance of the office. 
After an exhaustive study of the operation of other Public Defender's 
Offices, the committee did make many recommendations to the San 
Francisco Bar Association, the Mayor, and the Board of Supervisors. 
In their report they stated: 

"The primary mission of the Public Defender is to furnish ade- 
quate and efficient legal services to those charged with crime who 
are unable to pay for private legal service. Although he must be a 
lawyer with considerable trial experience, we believe that in the 
City and County of San Francisco he is basically an administrator. 
His duty is to set up and maintain an efficient organization of trial 
lawyers and to supervise the work of each." 

In retiring as Public Defender, I am very happy to report to the 
citizens of San Francisco, the San Francisco Bar Association, the 
Lawyers' Club of San Francisco, and all interested parties, that dur- 
ing my tenure as Public Defender of the City and County of San 
Francisco, the office has been mindful of, and successful in, imple- 
menting the recommendations made by the Bar Association Committee. 

We have constantly strived to make "Equal justice for all" a 
reality. The office has continuously instituted changes in order to 
improve the quality of representation and the operation of the office. 

- 1 - 



The criteria of ability, experience, and dedication used in the selec- 
tion of Deputy Public Oefenders has been instrumental in assuring 
that each individual client represented by the office receives legal 
representation comparable to that he would receive if he had the fi- 
nancial ability to employ private counsel? a fact continuously 
attested to by the many Judges serving in the criminal division of 
both the Superior and Municipal Courts. 

WHY WE NEED A PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE 

A social democracy, such as ours, is zealous in the preservation 
of individual freedoms; to the extent that such freedoms are not in- 
consistent with maintenance of the health, welfare, and morals of 
the group of which the individual is a part. 



Our Federal and State Constitutions, the Fifth Amendment, pro- 
tect each and every citizen from oppression in the exercise of his 
basic concerns. The protective influences of our democratic way of 
life find expression in the elaborate and extensive fabric of law 
which characterizes the administration of justice in situations re- 
lating to crime. Also, the Sixth Amendment provides that: 

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy 
the right of a speedy and public trial by an impartial 
jury ... and to be informed of the nature and cause of 
the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against 
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses 
in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for 
his defense." 

The Fourteenth Amendment provides i 

"... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, 
liberty, or property without due process of law; nor 
deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro- 
tection of the law." 

The provisions of the California Constitution and the general 
laws of the State of California, as well as the Charter of the City 
and County of San Francisco, relating to the protection afforded 
those accused of crime, are not inconsistent with the provisions of 
the United States Constitution. 

It is the preservation of these rights and the universal appli- 
cation of these protections that the Public Defender's Office of Sar 
Francisco has provided under my leadership over the past twenty year 
I am personally indebted to all of my staff - rry Chief Deputies, my 
Deputy Public Defenders, my Confidential Secretary, my Clerks, and 
my Investigators, all of whom have dedicated themselves to this pur- 
pose, that each person accused of crime, irrespective of his statior 
in life, receive those legal protections to which he is entitled 
under the law. 






- 2 - 



DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

In representing Defendants, our prime duty and responsibility is 
to see that each Defendant is granted a fair and impartial trial; 
that all of his rights are preserved; that the innocent are not found 
guilty; that every possible defense is presented; that investigation 
is made to ascertain if any mitigating circumstances exist; and gen- 
erally, to see that each Defendant receives every protection of the 
law to which he is justly entitled under our Federal and State Con- 
stitutions and judicial decisions. 

We exercise extreme care and caution to be certain that none but 
those eligible for legal service by the Public Defender's Office are 
represented. Affidavits regarding financial inability to employ 
private counsel are required of most all Defendants, in addition to 
the fact that they are questioned as to family responsibility and 
other possible assets. 

JURISDICTION 

The Public Defender's Office in San Francisco was the second 
Public Defender's Office established in the State of California, on 
October 15> 1921. We were one of the first Public Defender's Offices 
in the State of California to represent indigent Defendants in all 
phases of criminal proceedings on a large scale basis, including not 
only Felony Preliminary Hearings and Felonies but also all types of 
Misdemeanor cases, including serious moving t raff ice violation cases, 
Juvenile Court cases, mentally ill cases, etc. 

The office operates under Section 3.403, formerly Section 33 of 
the City and County of San Francisco, which was adopted in 1932. 

We are also governed by Section 27706 and related sections of 
the Government Code of the State of California; Sections 633? 634, 
658, 659 and 700 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, together with 
Sections 4852.01 to 4852.2 of the Penal Code. 

Our jurisdiction covers approximately a million people, which 
includes those from the Peninsula and the Bay Area who work and visit 
San Francisco daily. 

A NEW REHABILITATION PROGRAM 

DIVERSION 

Effective December 15, 1972, California Penal Code Section 1000 
et. seq. was enacted by the California Legislature providing for 
special proceedings in narcotic and drug abuse cases, commonly known 
as "Diversion." 

This law is applicable whenever a case is before any Court upon 
an accusatory pleading for violation of specified sections of the 
California Health and Safety Code and it appears that the following 
applied to the Defendant: 

- 3 - 



(1) The Defendant has no prior conviction for any 
offense involving narcotics or restricted dan- 
gerous drugs. 

(2) The offense charge did not involve a crime of 
violence or threatened violence. 

(3) There is no evidence of a violation relating 
to narcotics or restricted dangerous drugs 
other than a violation of the sections listed 
in this subdivision. 

{k) The Defendant has no record of probation or 
parole violations. 

Section 1000 of the Penal Code provides that first time drug 
possessors may be diverted out of the Criminal Justice System and 
into a program of education, treatment of rehabilitation. The San 
Francisco Public Defender's Office has been active in implementing 
the diversion procedures in appropriate cases, and one of our Depu- 
ties has participated in the formal education program by discussing 
the legal aspects of this Diversion Law with those who have been di 
verted. 

We have also continued to propose drug treatment alternatives 
the Courts in appropriate cases, rather than have Defendants serve 
lengthy County Jail sentences, when the primary problem relates to 
drug usage. 

During this past year we have also developed a working relatic^ 
ship with the Rehabilitation Program at the County Jail, so that in 
particular cases we would petition the Courts to modify County Jail 
sentences so that an individual could be released to a Drug Treat- 
ment Program or to an employment situation. 

The objective of this program is to reduce the number of crime 
committed by first time offenders; to divert those who are consider < 
to be good risks from the Criminal Justice System; thus offering trffl 
alternatives to future criminal behavior and to divert the specif ie 
offender to Community Programs; thereby reducing the jail population 
and treating the offenders in his or her community in a manner whiclt 
most studies have indicated is conducive to rehabilitation and reii* 
tegration into the community. 



It is also expected that the Diversion Program would have the 
effect of freeing more Police so that they may spend a larger port 
of their time detecting and apprehending offenders involved in crii 
against persons and property. 

We realize that Pretrial Diversion is a relatively new concep 
which is still in the process of evolution. Essentially, diversio 
involves a decision not to prosecute an arrestee on the condition 
that the arrestee does something in return, such as enrolling in a 
rehabilitative program. Of course, the Police and prosecutors hav 



U - 



traditionally exercised broad discretion in determing whether or not 
to arrest or to prosecute in any given case. Today Police and prose- 
cutors are given another alternative to nonarrest or nonprosecution. 

In 1967 the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the 
Administration of Justice issued a report in calling for the diver- 
sion of children from the formal Juvenile Justice System in order to 
avoid unnecessary stigma. 

We can anticipate an expansion of the various diversion programs. 
But we must be ever mindful that the diversion programs are meant 
only for those Defendants that have committed the proscribed acts. 
The diversion ought to be activated only when the Defendant might be 
found guilty and the traditional criminal process be utilized to 
safeguard the innocent. 

OUR EXPERIENCE IN VERTICAL METHOD Of 
REPRESENTATION PROVES VERY SUCCESSFUL 

Vie accomplished the change of representation in felony cases in 
the following manner. Although the caseload remained the same, the 
Deputies previously handling Preliminary Hearings were no longer re- 
quired to be locked into a Municipal Court. These Deputies were 
experienced and fully qualified to try Superior Court cases but be- 
cause of the existing problem could not be assigned, except in emer- 
gency situations, to try cases in the Superior Court. 

This meant that the expertise and experience of many qualified 
Deputies could not be fully utilized on a continuing basis. On the 
other hand, we had the Deputies who had been regularly assigned to 
trials in Superior Court who, because of the existing situation, 
never returned to the Municipal Court to handle Preliminary Hearings, 
thus not fully utilizing their experience at this stage of the pro- 
ceedings. 

Our solution consisted of pooling these two sets of Deputies and 
forming teams of two Deputies each. One team was assigned to the 
arraignment Court in Municipal Court. One team was assigned to run- 
ning the Master Calendar in Superior Court and also picking up the 
new matters to which the Public Defender was appointed for the first 
time. This team also carries a full caseload because of a rotation 
schedule although it does not handle Preliminary Hearings during its 
assignment to the Master Calendar Court. The remaining teams allowed 
for the assignment of two teams to each of the three Municipal Courts 
conducting Preliminary Hearings. 

Advance scheduling was made possible by assigning each team al- 
ternate days and each team member alternates team days. Normally 
then each Deputy would know his future Preliminary Hearing Court days 
and the case assigned immediately upon transfer from the arraignment 
Court. Theoretically the Deputy would then represent that particular 
client to final disposition in the Superior Court. As much as possi- 
ble the team members familiarize themselves with each other's cases 
and interview the Defendant together, since they were to be backup 
for each other. 

- 5 - 



The reason for backup between team members is obvious because 
during the various stages of proceedings the Deputies must be presen 
in Municipal Court for Preliminary Hearings and in any of the eight 
Superior Courts handling criminal cases. Arraignments, motions, 
trials, sentencing, thus the need for backup with a Deputy familiar 
with the case. 

The morales of those Deputies who were qualified to try Superic 
Court cases on a continuing basis, but could not do so, has greatly 
improved and their professional pride enhanced. At the Preliminary 
Hearing the Deputy sees the main witnesses, can cross-examine them 
and evaluate their testimony, and, since representation will be con- 
tinuous, early investigation and strategy is properly planned. 

Defendants do equate proper representation with continuous rep- 
resentation and properly so. Knowing and seeing the same Deputy at 
every stage of the proceeding is reassuring to the Defendant and do< 
embue him with the feeling that his Attorney does care and is doing 
everything he can for him. 

These improvements, of course, have been made possible by the 
dedication and effectiveness of the Deputies in the Public Defender Is 
Office, who are making sure that our plan will succeed and to accomj 
plish our goal of "Equal Justice Under Law." 

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM 



Through the efforts of the Public Defender, the Board of Super 
visors of the City and County of San Francisco in I960 approved the; 
following ordinance for the establishment of an internship program 
in the office of the Public Defender: 

Section 16.9-1. Internship for Law Students and Attorneys. 

The Public Defender is hereby authorized to institute a 
system of internship for duly qualified law students and 
attorneys of the City and County of San Francisco to 
serve in the office of the Public Defender and thereby 
acquire experience in the field of criminal law. The 
said service to be entirely voluntary and under the sup- 
ervision of the Public Defender and permanent members of 
the Office of the Public Defender. 

Since the inauguration of this program many law students have 
served under this program. The response to the program and the 
gratifying results experienced by those who have served indicate 
without question that such a program is a vital force in aiding ir| 

the proper administration of criminal justice. 

FOREIGN VISITORS 

In conjunction with the San Francisco Reception Center, Depai:- 
ment of State, we have been participating during the past several 
years in the Education and Cultural Exchange Program of the Deparji 
of State. 



- 6 - 






The purpose of the program is to better international relations 
by having individuals selected by the American Embassy make a tour 
of study and observation which experience will result in favorable 
attitudes towards the United States by the individual and his country- 
men. 

During the past year we again had the pleasure of receiving many 
representatives from foreign countries who expressed a desire and 
interest in visiting our office.. As part of their orientation, we 
not only explain the operation and function of the Public Defender's 
Office, but take them to the Courts where they meet with the various 
Judges and observe the Courts in session. 

The Reception Center has indicated that their visit to our of- 
fice is considered by many to be the highlight of their tour and, as 
a result, there is a constantly increasing demand for a visit to our 
office. 



INVESTIGATIONS 



Our Investigators' duties are usually compared to those of the 
Inspectors assigned to the San Francisco Police Department Details, 
such as Homicide, Narcotics, etc. However, our Investigators cannot 
specialize in types of crimes - they must investigate all types. 

In addition to their own case load, a reciprocal agreement has 
been in practice where they work cases for other counties. Due to 
the increased number of new Public Defender Offices throughout the 
state, these cases are also in the increase. However, the compen- 
sating factor in this agreement is the substantial monetary savings 
in travel funds. 

Through the information secured by our Investigators, the At- 
torneys have been able to successfully terminate many cases, thereby 
eliminating long and costly trials. 

In addition to securing statements, locating witnesses, testi- 
fying in Court, taping conversations, producing witnesses, they also 
Subpoena all defense witnesses. 

1973-197*1 CASES HANDLED BY INVESTIGATION SECTION 

Felony Cases Investigated 436 

Misdemeanor Cases Investigated 131 

Juvenile Cases Investigated 146 

Cases Investigated for Other Public 

Defender Offices 63 

Subpoenas Served 4l8 

Interviews Conducted 1,204 



- 7 - 



In addition, the Investigators performed the following service* 



Secured 156 Medical and Coroner's Records 
Searched 1,050 Other Records 
Furnished 279 Diagrams and Photographs 
Furnished 77 Tape Recordings of Statements 

Among the many cases investigated were included the following: 



kk Murders 
k Manslaughters 
1 Intent to Commit Murder 
85 Narcotics Charges, broken 
as fol lows: 

8 - Section 



31 

11 
2 



16 
16 
17 



down in the more serious ones 






17 - 

23 - 

9 - 



Section 
Section 
Section 



Robberies 

Burglaries 

Felonious Assaults 

Rapes 

Kidnappings 
10 Grand Theft Charges 
kk Automobile Charges, 

as fol lows: 

13 - 
7 - 

25 Resisting Arrest 
18 Batteries 
16 Sex Perversions 

Petty Theft 

Receiving Stolen Property 



11501 of the Health £ Safety Co* 
11350 of the Health & Safety Coi 
11352 of the Health & Safety Co< 
11377 of the Health & Safety Co 



broken down in the more serious ones 



Section 
Section 



10851 of the Vehicle Code 
23102 of the Vehicle Code 



Disorderly Conduct 



UNIT COUNTING 



The unit of counting in our criminal 
rather than the case or charge. If severa 
are prosecuted during an overlapping time 
When there are multiple cases or charges, 
dismissed or acquitted only if there are d 
on all such cases or charges . A Defendant 
when there is a conviction on any one of a 
even if the conviction be for an uncharged 
fense to any of the charged offenses. 



statistics is the Defend! 

1 cases on one indi vidua 

period, they are combine!- i 

a Defendant is counted a! 

ismissals or acquittals 1 

is counted as convicted 

group of cases or chargs, 

lesser and included of- 



- 8 - 






THE DUTY OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER IN 
REPRESENTING THE MENTALLY DISORDERED, 
BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL 

Under the authority of the Government Code Section 27706, the 
San Francisco Public Defender's office has long recognized the need 
for providing legal representation in any area, whether Civil or 
Criminal, where involuntary incarceration might result. Therefore, 
for over twenty years we have assured legal representation to all 
persons subjected to the procedure before the Mental Health Court. 

In 1968 the Federal Court, in the leading case of Heryford v. 
Parker , 386 Fed. 2d 393 » sanctioned the policy of this office by 
finding that the alleged mentally ill had a constitutional right to 
counsel in Civil Commitment Hearings. 

Until 1969 a judicial determination of mental illness not only 
deprived an individual of his liberty for an indeterminate period, 
but it also could deprive him of many legal and economic rights that 
an adjudication of restoration to sanity did not necessarily restore. 

Under preexisting law, a person could be committed to a hospital 
for treatment if he were determined to be of such mental condition 
that he was in need of care, restraint, supervision, or treatment 
and/or due to a mental condition he was dangerouse to himself or the 
person or property of others and in need of care, supervision, treat- 
ment or restraint. 

A petition for commitment could be filed and, if two Court ap- 
pointed Physicians so certified, there was no legal requirement that 
the alleged mentally ill person be present at a hearing, unless he 
affirmatively demanded such a hearing. This office represented each 
person on whom a petition was filed and in many instances demanded 
jury trials on their behalf if the commitment appeared inappropriate. 

The growing concern of the public over the civil rights of the 
mentally ill led to the enactment of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act 
in 1967, to become operative in July 1969> as part of the Community 
Mental Health Services Law. 

The expressed goals of this Act were; 

A. To end the inappropriate, involuntary, and indefinite 
commitment of mentally disordered persons and persons 
impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate 
legal di sabi 1 i ties ; 

B. To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons 
with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic 
alcohol ism; 

C. To guarantee and protect the public safety; 

D. To safeguard individual rights through judicial review; 



- 9 - 



E. To provide individualized treatment, supervision 
and placement services by a Conservatorship Pro- 
gram for the Gravely Disabled; and 

F. To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, 
professional personnel and public funds to accom- 
plish these objectives and to prevent duplication 
of services and unnecessary expenditures. 

Under the Act, to be mentally ill was not a sufficient criteria 
to subject a person to involuntary treatment. Only those persons whc 
were so mentally disordered as to be a danger to themselves or othen 
or those persons who were so "Gravely Disabled" by their mental dis- 
orders that they were unable to provide for their basic needs of 
food, clothing and shelter, could be subjected to involuntary treat- 
ment. 

Procedurally, judicial review time limitations were set for the 
three main categories of civilly detained mentally disordered person 
to prevent indiscriminate involuntary treatment. In any of the cate> 
gories, the maximum initial evaluation period is set at seventy-two 
hours in a county designated and state approved evaluation facility. 
Written application for such an evaluation has to be executed by a 
Peace Officer, member of attending staff of the evaluation facility, 
or other designated professional person. 

If further intensive treatment appears to be necessary, and the 
person is unwilling or incapable of volunteering for such treatment, 
an additional fourteen days certification may be requested by the 
evaluation staff of the facility. Notice of this certification must 
be served not only on the individual, but also on his Attorney and 
the District Attorney. Simultaneously, he must be advised in writin 
of his right to a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The members of the treat in 
facility are charged with conveying the patient's request for releas 
to the proper authorities and the Writ, or request for release, must 
be heard within two judicial days of its filing. 

If the Writ is denied, at the expiration of the fourteen day 
period, the person must be released, unless, in the case of the men- 
tally disordered individual, it is alleged that he is imminently 
dangerous to others. Such danger must be demonstrated by his having 
either been taken into custody due to the actual infliction of phys- 
ical harm or, while in custody, realistically threatening, attemptir 
or inflicting harm on the person of another. 

He may then be certified for an additional maximum ninety day 
period of treatment, if he is unsuccessful in preventing his deten- 
tion at a hearing which must be calendared within four days of filir 
the Post Certification Petition. At the time of this hearing, he me 
demand a jury trial, such jury trial to commence within ten days of 
the demand. 

Should the finding of the Court, or three-quarters of the jury 
be adverse to the person, he still must be released from intensive 
treatment at the expiration of the ninety day period, unless a new 



- 10 - 






Petition for an additional ninety days, based on acts occurring during 
the previous ninety days' certification, is filed. As a practical 
matter, a request for treatment for an imminently dangerous person 
is rare. 

For the person who allegedly is a danger to himself in that he 
has seriously threatened or attempted to take his own life, and who 
overtly appears to continue to be suicidal at the expiration of the 
first fourteen day period, confinement may be for an additional four- 
teen day period upon proper notice and hearing. At the expiration of 
that time, however, he must be released. This provision of the Act 
is almost never invoked. 

The "Gravely Disabled" group of involuntary patients almost ex- 
clusively comprises the calendar of the Mental Health Court. For 
these, the Act provides for the appointment of a Conservator who shall 
have, among other duties, the right to place the Conservatee in a 
treatment facility when necessary and to supervise his living arrange- 
ments from a mental health standpoint. 

The Petition for Appointment of Conservator must be filed before 
the expiration of the fourteen day certification period and served on 
the proposed Conservatee, his Attorney, the District Attorney and the 
Department of Mental Hygiene. A hearing on the Petition must be held 
within thirty days, an Attorney must be provided for the Conservatee, 
and a jury trial may be demanded before, during, or within five days 
after the hearing. The patient has a right to cross-examine the two 
Court appointed Physicians who have attested to his mental status. 

If the Petition is granted, upon demand, the Conservatee may 
have a rehearing in six months. Unless a Petition to Reappoint the 
Conservator, including the opinion of two Physicians, is filed by 
the Conservator at least thirty days prior to the expiration date, 
the Conservatorship automatically terminates at the end of a year. 
The Conservatee may demand a jury trial on the Reappointment Peti- 
tion also. 

The LPS Act expressly excluded from its provisions those persons 
who were "Judicially Committed" to state facilities. The term "Ju- 
dicially Committed" was limited to those persons committed pursuant 
to Penal Code provisions, previously committed mentally retarded per- 
sons, mentally disordered sex offenders, and mentally abnormal sex 
offenders who were committed to state hospitals for indeterminate 
periods. 

It authorized the involuntary detention of inebriates for their 
protection for a maximum period of seventy-two hours, but terminated 
the former judicial commitment of alcoholics, epileptics, narcotics 
and habit forming drug addicts, who did not meet the criteria of be- 
ing either "Gravely Disabled", or imminently dangerous. 

An unanticipated result of the legislative attempt to protect 
the Civil Rights and Liberties of the harmless mentally disordered 
person, who could provide for his basic needs, was a shifting of many 
of these people into the criminal system. 



- 11 - 



Municipal Court records show many arrests and bookings on mis- 
demeanor violations of an inconsequential nature in which the Defen- 
dant is transferred almost immediately after the arrest to a state 
mental facility. Some of these unfortunates have ultimately been 
certified to the Superior Court and committed to the hospital for 
the criminally insane on such original charges as disturbing the 
peace, failure to identify themselves, or malicious mischief. 

Frequently the arresting officer recognizes the aberrant be- 
havior to be the result of a mental disorder, feels that the person 
needs treatment for his own protection, but is frustrated in his 
attempt to have the person accepted at a psychiatric facility be- 
cause of the strict civil requirements of the LPS Act. Thus the 
paradox: The Criminal Courts unwi 1 1 ingly, and unwittingly become 
vehicles for the accomplishment of involuntary commitment for treat- 
ment of the mentally ill while the Civil Courts, in protecting his 
right to refuse treatment, simultaneously allows him to acquire a 
criminal record. 

Tor many of these people, an examination of their prior histor 
ies suggest a consistent pattern: Many prior periods of hospitali- 
zations for mental illness usually for several weeks, releases after 
stablization on medication, several months at liberty in the com- 
munity, rehospi tal ization in a mental hospital, coupled, after 1 369 
with some minor criminal charge. After 1969, some of these hospita 
izations were the result of a finding by the Criminal Court that th 
"Defendant" was incompetent to stand trial. Similarily, the medicai 
records of many of these people reveal a refusal to continued medi-j 
cation once they are released from the hospital and, without medics} 
tion, an inability to maintain themselves in the community without 
attracting the attention of lav/ enforcement personnel. 

It is anticipated that already introduced legislation will soc 
be enacted to cover this unfortunate part of the citizenry in view 
of the statewide concern in this area. In the interim, the San 
Francisco Public Defender's Office, with the cooperation of the Sar! 
Francisco District Attorney's Office, and the State Department of 
Mental Hygiene, has in recent months established a procedure to pnj 
vent the judicial commitment of obviously psychotic misdemeanants, 
dispose of the criminal charges by channeling the Defendant into 
civil treatment programs and simultaneously protect the public. 

During 1973, the Supreme Court of California held that those 
persons charged with criminal offenses and judicially committed 
solely on their incompetency to stand trial could be detained onlyi 
sufficiently long to ascertain if there is substantial likelihood 
that sanity wi 1 1 be restored in the reasonably foreseeable future.; 
The Court further indicated a necessity for semiannual progress re! 
ports to the Court. (_l n re Davis 8 Cal . 3d 798 (1973) ; Jackson v. 
ndiana ij-06 U.S. 715 ("1972) ) 



Simultaneously, the State Department of Mental Hygiene imple- 
mented an administrative decision to transfer all "Judicially Cor 
mi t ted" patients (Penal Code and mentally disordered sex offenderfj 
to either Patton State Hospital or Atascadero State Hospital. 

- 12 - 



These two events forcefully brought to the attention of this 
office that a number of persons committed to state hospitals from 
the San Francisco Criminal Courts , because of the lac!', of reporting 
requirements, had been committed for periods in excess of the maxi- 
mum time they could have received if found guilty and sane at the 
time of the offense. 

It was deemed essential to assign at least one Deputy full time 
to protect the legal rights of the mentally disordered, both Civil 
and Criminal, and we are now in the process of locating all San 
Francisco judicially committed persons presently hospitalized and, 
in appropriate cases, requesting termination of the criminal commit- 
ments in favor of Civil treatment programs. In the future, a sepa- 
rate record file shall be maintained to monitor all judicially 
committed Defendants. 

There should be more time to investigate alternatives to Con- 
servatorships, particularly for the aged who should not be classified 
as mentally disordered, and to interview the alleged "Voluntary" pa- 
tients who forfeit certain rights in the initial commitment proceed- 
ings. 

For the mentally disordered criminal offender, more investiga- 
tion and advocacy is needed in preventing the criminalization of the 
chronically ill, as well as in assisting the Court in recognizing 
the earliest point at which a client could safely have his criminal 
charges resolved. V'e hope we can obtain additional help for this 
purpose. 

During the fiscal year 1973-7^» this office represented 550 per- 
sons at Conservatorship Hearings before the Mental Health Court. In 
connection with those persons, we made 690 appearances, including 
9 hearings in Writs of Habeas Corpus and 2 jury trials. 

Under the Penal Code Sections, we represented 205 clients on 
1368 PC certifications to Superior Court as incompetent to stand 
trial and 95 persons on returns to Court after having been restored 
to competency. In addition, during the course of trials, motions 
under 1 360 PC have been made on behalf of 39 clients. At the pres- 
ent time, with the cooperation and consent of the bi strict Attorney, 
there are pending before the Superior Court 11 motions to vacate 
judicial commitments and dismiss criminal charges in favor of es- 
tablishing Civil Conservatorships. 

In the Misdemeanor Court, since December 1S-73? this office has 
obtained the cooperation of the District Attorney in dismissing 
criminal charges against 97 Defendants who, after investigation, 
were determined to be mentally disordered and more suitably served 
by the Department of Health than by the Penal System. Thity eight 
of these people were placed under Civil Conservatorshps. The others 
were placed in long range treatment programs. 



- 13 - 



JUVENILE COURT DIVISION 






The San Francisco Public Defender has always operated under the 
philosophy that a person appearing before the Juvenile Court is en- 
titled to the same constitutional process as any other member of the 
community. The United States Supreme Court in 1967 expressed this 
philosophy in a landmark case known as In re Gault (307 U.S. 1.) We 
believe that no single action h<- Ids more potential for achieving pro 
cedural justice for a child in Juvenile Court than the provision of 
counsel . 

The rights to confront one's accusers have significance for the 
overwhelming majority of the persons brought before the Juvenile 
Court only if they are provided with competent Lawyers who can invok 
those rights. 

We now have five Attorneys, one Investigator, and two Secre- 
taries assigned to the Juvenile Court Division. This increased 
personnel has resulted in a substantial affirmative effect upon the; 
administration of justice on behalf of minors in the Juvenile Court, 1 

Additionally, we have initiated a very successful Intern Prograr 

under the California State Bar Rules for the Practical Training of 
Law Students. A total of fifty-one advanced law students from the 
several law schools in the San Francisco Bay Area have participated 
During the fiscal year they voluntarily contributed a total of 6,38 
hours. This program has received national recognition. 

The Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over any person under the 
age of 18 who? 

A. Is in need of care because of home conditions or 
medical deficiencies. 

B. Has engaged in a pattern of delinquent behavior 
short of criminal conduct. 

C. V.'ho is delinquent due to a violation of criminal 
law or a Court Order. 

There are three ways in which a minor may be brought before t\ 
Juvenile Court. First, upon apprehension by a Police Agency, the 
minor and his parents may be issued a promise to appear before the 
Probation Officer. At the appearance before the Probation Officer 
the minor and his parents are entitled to be represented by an Att<- 
ney, if they desire. 



Second, when the Police neither issue a promise to appear nor 
release the minor from custody, the Police must take the minor wit 
out unnecessary delay to Juvenile Hall. Immediately a Probation 
Officer evaluates the case as tcTwhetfter the minor shall be releas 
to his parents or detained pending a detention hearing. By Juveni 
Court policy, the Public Defender is appointed immediately upon th 
incarceration of the minor. Each minor v/ho is detained will be in 
terviewed by us prior to the first Court appearance. 



- 14 - 






Third, the parents, school authorities, or social service agen- 
cies may bring the minor to the attention of the Juvenile Court, in 
which case the same procedures must be follov/ed as when the police 
initiate the referral. 

During the last fiscal year, the Public Defender represented 
3,079 persons before the Juvenile Court. 

THE DETENTION HEARING 

Upon delivery of the minor to Juvenile Hall, the Probation Offi- 
cer may release the minor, issue a promise to appear to the minor and 
release him, or detain the minor. The minor can be detained only 
when certain specific conditions exist. When the minor is detained, 
a petition must be filed in the Juvenile Court within a period of 48 
Hours after the time of arrest , and a Court hearing must be held on 
"the first judicial day followTng the filing of the petition . 

That initial Court hearing is known as a Detention Hearing. It 
may be heard before either a Judge or Commissioner of the Superior 
Court. The minor must be represented by an Attorney unless he intel- 
ligently waives his right to counsel. Our Attorney Staff appeared in 
1,628 Detention Hearings last year. 

Unless it appears that: 

1. The minor has violated an order of the Juvenile Court; 

2. Has escaped from a commitment of the Juvenile Court; 

3. It is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for 
the protection of the minor or the person or property 
of another that the minor be detained; 

4. That the minor is likely to flee the jurisdiction of 
the Court. The Court must release the minor from 
custody. 

Last year approximately 42% of the minors were give release or- 
ders by either the Judge or Commissioner when they were represented 
by the Public Defender at Detention Hearings. 

THE JURISDICTIONAL HEARING 

A Court hearing to determine whether the allegations of the pe- 
tition are true must be held within 15 judicial days when the minor 
is in custody. When the minor is not detained, the hearing must be 
held within 30 judicial days of the filing of the petition . 

Last year the Public Defender's Division made 4,817 appearances 
at jurisdictional hearings. 



- 15 - 



The jurisdictional hearing begins by the petition being read to 
the minor and his parents. The minor is then asked whether he admits 
or denies the allegations. When the minor admits the allegations, 
the disposition phase begins. V.'hen the minor denies the allegations, 
the case becomes a contested matter, and the prosecution (either the 
District Attorney or the Probation Officer) has the burden of pre- 
senting sufficient competent evidence to prove the allegations beyond 
a reasonable doubt in criminal allegations, and by a preponderance of 
the evidence in non-criminal allegations. During the last year 1,385 
contested cases were taken to hearing by the Deputy Public Defenders; 
approximately 30% of the petitions were contested when the minor was 
represented by the Public Defender. 

After hearing the testimony and accepting other evidence, the 
Courts make a finding as to whether the allegations of the petition 
are true. The Court may take one of three alternatives, each of . 
which must be predicated upon the evidence: 

First, the Court may find that the allegations are true, and sw. 
tain the petition. Of the cases contested by the Public Defender, 
approximately 30% resulted in the petition being sustained as filed 

Second, the Court may find that a lesser and necessarily in- 
cluded act has been committed rather than the conduct which was 
alleged in the petition. Of the contested cases, approximately 32% 
resulted in the Court sustaining the petition on the basis of a 
lesser act having been committed. 

Third, the Court may dismiss the petition entirely, or in lay- 
man's terms find the person not guilty, which was the result in 
approximately 38% of the contested cases. 

THE DISPOSITION HEA RING 

When the Court sustains the petition, the next phase of the Juv 
enile Court procedure is known as the Disposition Hearing. The Depi y 
Public Defenders made 2,997 appearances at Disposition Hearings last 
year. 

The disposition in a Juvenile Court proceeding is analgous to 
the sentence in a criminal (adult) Court proceeding. The greatest 
practical difference is that the Juvenile Court is under much less 
statutory pressure to exact social retribution than is the adult Coi*t 

The basic purpose of the Juvenile Court Law is to secure for e 
minor under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court such care and gu p- 
ance preferably in the child's own home, as will serve the spiritua, 
emotional, mental, and physical welfare of the minor, and the best 
interests of the Community and the State. 



Before deciding what treatment to prescribe for the minor, the 
Court must make three preliminary decisions: 



- 16 - 






First, it must decide whether to take further action. Nothing 
in the law requires, even after a petition has been sustained, that 
anything need be done to or for the minor. Thus, the Court may dis- 
miss the matter, take no further action, or conditionally schedule a 
further hearing on the disposition. Practically speaking, this ap- 
proach is utilized by the Probation Officers by not even filing a 
petition in the first place, and is the result of the Deputy Public 
Defenders either interviewing the minor immediately upon being incar- 
cerated, or the Deputy Public Defender being present at the Promise 
to Appear Hearing. 

Roughly 50% of the referrals to the Probation Officer are dis- 
posed of without the filing of a petition. 

The second preliminary decision the Court must make is whether 
to obtain a detailed diagnosis of the minor's mental health and treat- 
ment possibilities. San Francisco has established a Study and Evalu- 
ation Program for Boys at Hidden Valley Ranch School, which is located 
about fifty miles south of the City in the San Mateo mountains. The 
evaluation program consists of a very comprehensive testing and eval- 
uation of the psychological, academic and social factors. The com- 
mitment is for a maximum of ninety days, and provides a basis upon 
which the future care and supervision of the minor can be predicated. 

In the case of girls, local psychiatric and academic facilities 
are utilized. Upon completion of the ninety day evaluation, the minor 
is returned to Court for further disposition. 

The third preliminary decision to be made by the Court is whether 
to declare the child a ward and thus place a statutory label on the 
minor. When the Court decides not to label the minor, the only final 
disposition, other than to do nothing at all, is to place the minor on 
probation for a period not longer than six months. Such a disposition 
is not only to the distinct advantage of the minor, but also material- 
ly diminishes the paper workload of the Probation Officer and the 
Juvenile Court let alone the Deputy Public Defenders. 

When the Court decides that the minor should be labeled, the al- 
ternatives open for future care and supervision are vastly broadened. 
In those cases where the Court finds that the rr'nor is in need of care 
because of unfit home conditions or medical deficiencies (Section 600 
of the Juvenile Court Law) the Court may adjudge the minor a Depen- 
dent Child of the Court. 

If the Court has found that the minor has engaged in a pattern 
of delinquent conduct short of criminal activity (Section 601 of the 
Juvenile Court Law), or that the minor is delinquent because of crim- 
inal activity or violation of a Court order (Section 602 of the 
Juvenile Court Law), the minor may be adjudged a Ward of the Court. 

It is the intention of the law to protect Dependent Children, 
and thus the label placed upon them is not supposed to be a deterent 
to rehabilitation. On the other hand, since the label used for tru- 
ants and those beyond the control of their parents (Section 601 of 
the Juvenile Court Law) is the same as for murderers, burglars, rap- 
ists, armed robbers and those in violation of the curfew ordinance 

- 17 - 



(Section 602 of the Juvenile Court Law), the consequences of being 
labeled a Ward can be very serious. Thus, the Deputy Public Defenders 
make every effort to avoid the declaration of Wardship. 

If the minor has been labeled either a Ward or Dependent Child, 
the Court acquires jurisdiction to limit the parent's control over 
the minor. This includes the possible removal of the child from the 
custody of the parents. But the Juvenile Court Law allows for re- 
moval from the custody of the parents only when the welfare or safety 
of the minor requires, or when the safety and protection of the public 
cannot be adequately safeguarded without the child being removed from 
his home. Moreover, the minor cannot be removed from his home unless 
a hearing is had and evidence introduced in support of the contention 
for removal . 

When the determination is made by the Court that the minor shoul< 
be removed from his home, the Dependent Child (Section 600 cases) may 
be placed in a foster home or in a private or public institution es- 
tablished to care for needy and neglected children. The non-criminal 
delinquent (Section 601 cases) may be placed in the same placements 
as the Dependent Child, or in a juvenile home or ranch. The Ward who 
is found to have committed criminal acts or violated a Court order 
(Section 602 cases) may be placed in the same type of facilities as 
the other children, and additionally may be committed to the Cali- 
fornia Youth Authority. 

In practice in San Francisco, a foster home or ranch school com- 
mitment is usually attempted before commitment to the Youth Authority 
the exception being for children that require specialized treatment 
that is available only at the Youth Authority facilities. However, 
when the child is removed from his home, the law requires that the 
care and discipline provided must be the equivalent of that which 
should have been given by the parents. 

RECAPITULATION 

APPEARANCES MADE BY PUBLIC DEFENDER IN JUVENILE COURT 

At Detention Hearings 1,628 

At Jurisdiction Hearings 4,817 

At Disposition Hearings 2,997 



TOTAL 9,hh2 



- 18 - 






RECAPITULATION 
(continued) 



ALLEGATIONS HANDLED TO CONCLUSION BY 
PUBLIC DEFENDER IN JUVENILE COURT 

Description of Allegation Number of Allegations 

Dependency 211 

Beyond Parent Control 673 

Truant 75 

Modification of Court Order 299 

Violation of Court Order 186 

Criminal Delinquency; 

Crimes Against Administration 

of Justice 1 10 

Crimes Against the Person M*8 

Crimes Against Public Decent y 119 

Crimes Against Property 1,001 

Narcotics 135 

Weapons 62 

Vehicle Code Violations 179 

Drunk Driving 3 

City Ordinance, Federal Laws, 

Fish £• Game, etc. 1^5 2,202 

TOTAL NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS HANDLED 3,646 



- 19 - 



FELOHY CASES HANDLED IN SUPERIOR COU;.T 



Pending Cases - 1972-1973 
New Cases 



Appearances Hade 
Charges Fi led 

Additional Persons Represented 
In Conservatorship Hearings 

Appea ranees Wade On These 
Habeas Corpus Writs Filed 

In These Cases 
Jury Trials 



TOTAL 



690 

9 
2 




7,290 
3,313 

558 



THE SUPERIOR COURT CASES ARJ_SE_AS_ FOLLOWS : 

Held To Answer In Municipal Court 1,131 
Taken Over From Private Counsel After Held To 
Answer In Municipal Court - Or Upon Appoint- 
ment By Judge For Various Reasons - Or On 

Special Certification To The Superior Court 251 

Indicted Dy Grand Jury 17 
Certified From Municipal Court On (Negotiated Pleas 95 

Certified Pursuant To Section 1360 Penal Code 205 
Certified Pursuant To Sections 3050 and 3051 Of 

The Welfare And Institutions Code 23 

Returned From Department Of Corrections 95 

Returned From California Rehabilitation Center 31 

Motions To Revoke Or Modify Probation-Mew Cases 162 

Returned on Bench War rants 6^- 

T0TAL 



We also made 333 Special Appearances at the request of the 
Superior Court Judges or by Private Attorneys, not counted as 
cases. 

In addition to the Motions made to revoke or modify probation 
shown above, there were 386 Motions made to revoke probation as 
part of the cases handled which we do not count as cases. 



- 20 - 



DISPOSITION OF MAIM CUPE . J_0;",__COU,J_ GASES 

Defendant Pled Guilty 706 

Defendant Pled Guilty, To Lesser Included 

Offense, Not Degree 50 

Defendant Found Guilty 

By Jury - 48 By Court - k 52 

(Some Found Guilty Of Lesser Included Offense; 
1 Found To Be A Sex Offender; There Were Also 
7 Hung Juries) 
Defendant Found Not Guilty, By Reason Of Insanity, 

Court Trials 9 

Defendants Found Not Guilty 

By Jury - 8 By Court - 1 9 

Defendant Dismissed, Under Various Code Sections 67 
Taken Over By Private Counsel, Usually After 

Several Or More Appearances By Deputy Public 

Defenders 129 

Bench Warrant Issued For Failure To Appear, Gail 

Revoked 27 

Motion To Expunge And Seal 13 

Rehabilitation And Executive Clemency 11 

Referred Back To Municipal Court, Various Reasons 120 
Committed To Department Of Corrections 84 

Committed To State Hospitals \k$ 

Cases Still Pending For Sentencing Or Other 

Dispositions 48 



FINAL DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 
IN WHICH DEFENDANTS PLED GUILTY, WERE FOUND 
GUILTY OR WERE OTHERWIS E SENTENCED; 

Sentenced To State Prison 178 

Sentenced To County Jai 1 33 

Probation Or Suspended Sentence With County 

Jail Time 446 

Probation Or Suspended Sentence, Some With 

Fine Or Restitution 216 

Committed To Youth Authority 24 

Committed To State Hospitals (In Above Figure) 
Committed To Rehabilitation Center 119 

Sentenced To Time Served 23 

Pending For Sentence 29 

Miscellaneous - Sentence Or Disposition - Deceased 

- Bench Warrant Issued - Failed To Appear - Work 

Furlough - Conservatorship 13 

Approximately 480 Defendants had priors filed against them. 
258 Priors were stricken when Defendants entered a guilty plea 



- 21 - 



SPECIAL MOTIONS AND APPEARANCES MADE 
NOT COU NTED AS CASES 

notion To i, evoke Or Modify Probation - Part Of Case 336 

Motion For Discovery 105 

Motion To Reduce Gail 11 
Motion Under Sections 3050 and 3051 of the Vie 1 fare 

and Institutions Code 155 
Motion Under Section 3053 of the Welfare and 

Institutions Code 56 

Motion Under Section 1203.3 of the Penal Code 84 

Motion For New Trial \k 
Motion Under Various Miscellaneous Sections - 

Including Motions to Suppress, Motions Under 

Other Mental Sections, etc. 135 

Motion To Dismiss Under Section 995 of the Penal Code 57 

Consolidate 12 

Motion For Diversion 13 
Motion Under Section 1368 of the Penal Code - Part 

of Case 39 

Motion For Probation 933 

Granted - 611 Denied - 138 Other Disposition 






MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

Most of the Felony charges filed against the Defendants last 
year were under the following code sections» 

Major Health and Safety Code sections including narcotic 
and marijuanas 

Section 11350 (Formerly Section 11500) - Possession of Narcot- 
ics or dangerous drugs 

Section 11352 (Formerly Section 11501) - Sale of Narcotics or 

dangerous drugs 

Section 11357 (Formerly Section 11530) - Possession of Marijuan 

Section 459 of the Penal Code - Burglary 
Section 211 of the Penal Code - Robbery 
Section 245 of the Penal Code - Felonious Assault 
Section 496 of the Penal Code - Receiving or Concealing Goods 

Obtained Through Theft or Ex- 
tortion 
Section 487 of the Penal Code - Grand Theft 

Section 10851 of the Vehicle 

Code - Theft and Unlawful Driving or 
Taking a Vehicle 



- 22 - 



MURDER CASES HANDLED 1973-7':- 

This fiscal year we handled and appeared in 39 murder cases. 

Found Guilty of Second Degree 1 

Found Guilty of Manslaughter 3 

Found Not Gui lty 2 

Found Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity H 

Pled Guilty of First Degree 1 

Pled Guilty to Second Degree 5 

Pled Guilty to Manslaughter 10 

Returned From Hospital Under Section 1026 A of 

the Penal Code 2 

One of these found incompetent and sent 
to Atascadero. One transferred to Patton 
recommended for Parole. 
Transferred to Private Counsel 5 

Pending for Disposition 1 

Change of Venue Granted, Other Counsel Appointed 

by Court 
Appearance on Remittitur, Judgment Affirmed 1 

Those transferred to Private Counsel were usually only after 
many appearances made by our Deputies. 






OTHER ITEMS HANDLED 

Applications for our services: 

Financial Statements Filed 6,9^3 

Rejected or referred to Private Attorneys 1,291 

Other Office Visits for Help, miscellaneous matters 1,000 

Interviews With Clients in City Prison, County Jail, 
and Office Approximately - 10,000 

REMITTITURS. RETURNED 

Although our office is not properly staffed to file Appeals, last 
year there was returned to the Superior Courts of San Francisco 53 
Remittiturs which were handled by other Attorneys appointed by the 
Appellate Court; 51 Judgments of which were affirmed; 1 Judgment was 
reversed; and 1 case dismissed. 



- 23 - 



RECOUP OF FELONY CASES HANDLED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT 

Defendants Represented 4,703 

Charges Filed Against Defendants 9,204 

Number of Appearances Made by Deputies 13,037 

DISPOSITION OF FELONY CASES HANDLED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT 

Held to Answer 1,131 
Dismissed or Discharged * 540 
Taken Over by Private Counsel 1,569 
Indicted by Grand Jury 17 
Certified to Superior Court for Sentence- 
Negotiated Plea 88 
Fugitives Appeared For 99 
Charges Reduced to Misdemeanors 854 
Referred to Juvenile Division (Minors) 12 
Certified to Superior Court Under 1360 PC 65 
Failed to Appear - Bench Warrants Issued 84 
Diversion 12 
Pending Cases 1 16 
Other Miscellaneous Dispositions-Special 

Appearance 116 

* Many of the cases listed above, showing that Defendants were 
dismissed or discharged, are cases where, after a Court hear- 
ing, the Judge found the evidence insufficient to find the 
Defendant guilty, and therefore dismissed the charges. 

REDUCED CHARGES 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the Defendant at 
the Municipal Court Felony Hearing, enters a negotiated plea or is 
found guilty of a lesser included offense, to wit, a misdemeanor. 
Last year 854 Defendants were either found guilty or pled guilty to 
a Misdemeanor and were disposed of as follows: 

Sentenced to County Jail 129 

Probation With County Jail 389 

County Jail - One Day Suspended 16 

Suspended Sentence With Probation 293 

(Mostly With Fine or Restitution) 

Miscellaneous - Time Served, Pending, Fine, etc. 22 

Last year 51% of the Felony cases in the Municipal Court actual- 
ly handled by our office were reduced to Misdemeanors or dismissed. 

Only 44% of the Felony cases were Held to Answer to the Superioi 
Court for disposition. 



- 24 - 



DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 

Number of Defendants Represented 14,667 

Charges Filed Against Defendants 22,405 

Number of Appearances Hade by Deputies 30,116 

DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANOR CASES 









Defendants Pled Guilty 5,391 

Defendants Found Guilty 421 

Defendants Dismissed or Discharged * 3*984 

Defendants Found Not Guilty 125 

* Many of the cases listed above, showing that Defendants 
were dismissed or discharged, are cases v/here, after a 
Court hearing, the Judge found the evidence insufficient 
to find the Defendant guilty and, therefore, dismissed 
the charges filed against him. 

Misdemeanor cases include persons arrested or cited for misde- 
meanors committed in San Francisco. They appear before one of the 
general criminal departments of the Municipal Court where their 
disposition is determined by: 

Guilty Please, Nolo Contendre Please - Submittion on 
the Police Report - Court Trial - Transferred to the 
Jury Department - Dismissed - etc. 

During the year a little over 1,233* or approximately 8%, of 
the Defendants assigend to our office were eventually taken over by 
Private Counsel after several appearances by our Deputies. 

OTHER MIS DEMEANOR CASES HANDLED FO R DISPOSITION 

Motions to Revoke Probation - New 323 

Motions to Reduce or Modify Sentences - New 115 

Certified to Juvenile Court - Minors 21 

Certified to Superior Court Under 1368 PC 78 

Motions to Expunge or Seal Records (Dreakdov/n 207 

Fol lows) 

Diversions Under 1000 PC 357 



- 25 - 



OTHER MISDEMEANOR DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 

Taken Overy by Private Counsel 1,233 

Special Appearance 306 

Mentally 111 - Hearings 2k 

Warrants Issued 665 

Cases Still Pending 270 

Mi seel 1 aneous - Trailing Felonies, Off Calendar 132 

DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS EITHER 

PLED GUILTY, WERE F OUND GU ILTY OR O THERWISE S ENTENCED 

Commi tted to County Jai 1 398 

Committed to County Jail, One Day Suspended * 107 

Probation With Jail Time 38 1 

Suspended Sentence or Probation 3k 

(Some with Fine or Restitution) 

Probation Granted With Suspended Sentence 3,333 
(Most with Fine or Restitution) 

Fine or Restitution 486 

Sentenced to Time Served 689 

Hospitalized 39 

Committed to Youth Authority 7 

Miscellaneous Disposition and Bench Warrant 458 

* When the Judge imposes a jail sentence with one day 
suspended, he thereby maintains control of the sen- 
tence imposed upon the Defendant which can be modi- 
fied any time thereafter, within his discretion, to 
either time served or a lesser jail time than orig- 
inal 1y imposed. 

It is interesting to note that very few of the clients that we - ' 
represented, who were charged with misdemeanor crimes last year, were 
sentenced to jail or spent much time in the County Jail. The recordf 
below will show that only 15% of those found guilty or who pled 
guilty spent any time in jail whatever, some with probation and 



- 26 - 






some with one day suspended sentence. The information presented be- 
low shows the other disposition of cases handled by our office of 
Defendants who either pled guilty or were found guilty, as follows: 

Percentage 

Probation Granted V'ith Suspended Sentence 60.0% 

Committed to County Jail (Some with One Day 15*0% 

Suspended, Some with Probation) 
(A drop from 22% last year) 

Defendant Fined or Required to Make Restitution 8.5% 

Sentenced to Time Served 11.5% 

Other Miscellaneous Disposition, Including Hos- 
pitalization, Commitments to Youth Authority, 
Issuance of Bench Warrants, etc. 5.0% 

THE MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST MISDEMEANANTS 

HANDLED CY THE PUBLIC DEFEN D ER WERE; 

CRIMES /.GAI NST PERSONS ; 

Section 242 Penal Code - Dattery l,00l 

Section 245(a) Penal Code - Assault V'ith Deadly 223 

Weapon 
Section 417 Penal Code - Brandishing a Weapon in 203 

Threatening Manner 
Section 272 Penal Code - Child Neglect; Failure 109 

to Provide 
Section 270 Penal Code - Causing Minors to Become 40 

Ward of Juvenile Court 

CRIMES AGAINST PR O PERTY ; 

Section 488 Penal Code - Petty Theft ; Shoplifting 2,901 
Section 602(L) Penal Code - Trespass 1,108 

Section 594 Penal Code - Malicious Mischief 647 
Section 496.1 Penal Code - Receiving Stolen 300 

Property 
Section 2101 Unemployemnt Insurance Code - 21 4 

Obtaining Unemployment Benefit by Use of False 

Statements 
Section 459 Penal Code - Burglary 209 

Section 484(f). 2 Penal Code - Forgery of Credit 101 

Card 
Section 647(g) Penal Code - Loitering on Private 92 

Property 



- 27 - 



CRIMES r.GAIi 1ST PEACE OFFICEuS : 

Section 14G Penal Code - Resisting Officers in 1,1 ^+7 

the Discharge of Their Duties 
Section 243 Penal Code - Assault on Peace Officer 294 

CRIMES AGAIN ST PUBLIC : 

Section 647(f) Penal Code - Under Influence of 1,523 

Intoxicating Liquor or Drug 
Section 647(b) Penal Code - Solicits or Engages 1,482 

in Act of Prostitution 
Section 415 Penal Code - Affray and Disturbing 1,225 

Peace 
Section 647(c) Penal Code - Obstructing Public 1,170 

Use of Sidewalk 
Section 647(a) Penal Code - Solicits or Engages 846 

in Lewd Act 
Section 647(e) Penal Code - Loiters in Public 213 

Without Identification 
Section 650 1 ^ Penal Code - Act Against Public 198 

Health or Decency; False Personation 

N ARCOTICS OFFEN CES: 

Section 4143(a) Business and Professional Code - 795 

Possession of Hypodermic Needle and Syringe 
Section 11550 Health and Safety Code 713 

Under Influence of Narcotics in Public 
Section 11357 Health and Safety Code 707 

Possession of Marijuana 

WEAPONS OFFENSES : 

Section 12031 Penal Code - Possession of Loaded 305 

Gun in Public Place 
Section 1291(b) Municipal Police Code - Loitering 243 

While Carrying Knife with 3" Blade 
Section 12025 Penal Code - Carrying Concealed 186 

Fi rearms 
Section 12020 Penal Code - Carrying Restricted 107 

Weapons, e.g. Swi tchblade Knife, etc. 

HUN I C I PAL COURT JURY TR I ALS 

We continue to have considerable demands for Jury Trials in 
the Municipal Court from Defendants charged with serious Misdemeanor* 
and major Traffice violations. 

Most of them are disposed of without having a Jury Trial by ne- 
gotiated please or Court Trials, or dismissal of the charges. 

Experience will show that when a Jury Trial is waived, the De- 
fendant receives either a suspended sentence or a light sentence. 

- 28 - 



There were approximately 100 actual Jury Trials in the last fis- 
cal year; 31 Defendants were found not guilty, 20 trials resulted in 
hung juries, and 43 were found guilty. 

Total Jury Demands 1,288 

In the Master Calendar Department there were 1,018 Jury demands, 
They were disposed of as follows: 

Negotiated Pleas 359 

Dismissed 495 

Bench V/arrant Issued - Failed to Appear 93 

Continued to Next Year 7 

Certified to Superior Court Under 1368 PC 4 

Taken Over by Private Counsel 54 

Jury Waived - Court Trial 6 

270 Defendants were transferred to the Jury Trial Departments 
and were disposed of as follows: 

Negotiated Pleas Entered 119 

Defendants Dismissed 51 

Jury Verdict of Guilty 48 

Jury Verdict of Not Guilty 31 

Mistrials 20 

Continued to Next Year 1 

The Deputies assigned to the Jury Department are experienced 
and very proficient in disposing of these cases to the satisfaction 
of the Defendant, which is the reason most all of them waive their 
demand for a Jury Trial. Dy waiving a demand for Jury Trial and 
disposition of the cases as mentioned herein, considerable expense 
and time is saved as Jury Trials are expensive. 

SEALING AND EXPUNGEMENT OF RECORDS 
MUNICIPAL AND SUPERIOR COURTS 

Sealing Under Section 851.7 Penal Code 10 

Sealing Under Section 1203.45 Penal Code 24 

Total 35 

Expungement Under Section 1203.4 Penal Code 130 

Expungement Under Section 1203.4(a) Penal Code 38 
Expungement Under Section 1772 Welfare and 

Institutions Code __5 

- 29 - Tota1 1ZJ. 



VEHICLES 




166 


6, 


7^0 


6 S 


527 



TRAFFIC CASES - MISDEMEANORS I NVOLVING MOTOR 

Defendants Represented in Traffic Cases 

Number of Appearances Made by Deputies 

Charges Filed 

In the last fiscal year we had a small reduction in the number 
of Defendants we were called upon to represent in traffic cases. 
The reason for this reduction was because we withdrew our Deputy, 
because of lack of personnel, who was serving Traffic Department 16, 
which we no longer service except on special occasions. 

DISPOSITI ON OF TRAFFIC CASES 

Defendants Pled Guilty or Nolo 
Defendants Foud Guilty After Hearing 
Defendants Found Not Guilty or Dismissed 
Taken Over by Private Counsel 
Motions Filed to revoke Probation-Slew Cases 
Bench War rants I ssued-Fai led to Appear 
Miscellaneous Cases 
Cases Still Pending 

TOTAL 




There were a considerable number of Dench Warrants issued a- 
gainst Defendants for traffic citations last year, in addition many 
motions were made to revoke probation after Defendants failed to 
appear or pay their fines when on probation to the Court. 

DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH 
DEFENDANTS EITHER PLED GUILTY 
OR NOLO-h'ERE FOUND GUILTY OR 
■^EJjE,_QTHERWI SE SENTENCED 

Committed to County Jail 112 
(In most cases Defendant was sentenced 
from one to five days) 

Fined 152 

Sentenced to Time Served 280 

Suspended Sentence With Probation 1,^-17 

Traffic School 2 

Miscellaneous Disposition 28 






- 30 - 



OF THE MANY CHANGES FILED AGAINST 
THE DEFENDANTS, THE CHARGES MOST 
OFTEN FILED V.'Ei.E: _ 

Vehicle Code Section 

12951 Driver's License, Refusal to 

Display, Not in Possession 

1^601 Driving I ith Suspended or 

Revoked License 

20002(a) Hit Hun With Property Damage 

22350 Violating Basic Speed Law 

23102 Driving Under the Influence of 

Alcohol or Drugs 

23103 Reckless Driving 

During the year, most Defendants had two or more violations 
filed against them in traffic cases, In the disposition of the 
cases, better than 50% of the charges filed against Defendants 
WERE DISMISSED when pleas were entered to another charge, or the 
Defendant was found guilty of one or two of the charges. 

NONE OF THESE DISMISSED CHARGES ARE FILED OR LISTED AS CASES 
BY THIS OFFICE. 






- 31 - 



ACTUAL DUDGET EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1973-74 



Permanent Salaries 

Temporary Salaries 

Maintenance and Repair of Automotive Equipment 

Contractual Services 

Materials and Supplies 

Use of Employees' Cars 

Law Books 

Equipment, Including Revenue Sharing 

Expert Witness Fees 

Fixed Charges - Dues 



NET BUDGET 



TOTAL 



929,910, 
1,140. 
1,000, 
6,308 

1,725. 
200, 
750, 

1,570, 
460, 
490, 

$ 943,553 



PERSON NEL AND COMPENSATION EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1973 
Our office consists of the following personnel: 

Per Month 



Public Defender $ 

Chief Attorney, Criminal 
4 Head Attorneys, Criminal 
13 Principal Attorneys, Criminal 
10 Senior Attorneys, Criminal 
4 Trial Attorneys, Criminal 
3 Investigators 

1 Confidential Secretary, with legal training 

2 Legal Stenographers 

1 Senior Clerk Typist 

3 General Clerk-Typists 

2 Clerk-Stenographers 



2,292. 
2,077. 
1,930. 
1,588. 



1 



341 

964. 

990. 

656. 

631. 

580. 

608. 



2,862. 
2,784. 
2,526. 
2,348. 
1,930. 
1,629. 
1,174. 
1,202. 

797. 

777. 

706. 

724. 



year 



Our office is paid on a bi-weekly basis, with 26 pay periods a 
Many of our Attorneys are at the tope of their bracket. 



The Attorneys all devote full time 
permitted to carry on private practice. 



to their duties, and are not 



Our offices are located at the Hall of Justice, 850 Bryant Strec 
San Francisco, CA 941035 telephone (415) 553-1671. 



- 32 - 



RECAP I TULAT I ON OF CASES HANDLED AND APPEARANCES HADE 



CASES: 



Superior Court 

Conservatorship Hearings 

Felony Preliminaries 

Misdemeanors 

Traffic 

Juveni le Court 



TOTAL 



2,074 
558 
4,703 
14,667 
3,166 
3,646 

28,814 



APPEARANCES 



Superior Court - 
Superior Court - 
Municipal Court- 
Municipal Court- 
Municipal Court- 
Juveni le Court 



Felonies 
Conservatorshi p 
Felonies 
Misdemeanors 
Traffic 



TOTAL 



7,290 

690 

13,087 

30,116 

6,740 

9,442 

67,365 



During the last fiscal year there was an increase in the number 
of Defendants represented by our office in all classifications from 
27,095 to 28,8l4. In other words we were called upon to represent 
1,719 more. 

There was also an increase in the number of appearances made in 
Court by our Deputies from 59,513 to 67,365, or 7,852 more appear- 
ances made in Court. Again these were primarily in the misdemeanor 
Courts. 

We do not show in the above figures the appearances made by our 
Deputies or Investigators in the City Prison or the County Jail that 
are made during the year, nor do these figures include the many con- 
ferences held during the year by our Deputies with their clients in 
their offices to review their cases and in preparing the case for 
Court hearing. 






- 33 - 



ERT NICCO 
c Defender 



OFFICE OF THE^PUBLIC DEFENDER 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

HALL OF JUSTICE 

ROOM 205, 850 BRYANT STREET 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103 

(415)553-1671 



IOUCHER FARZAN 

F Attorney -Administration 



February 23, 1976 
RECAPITULATION OF CASES HANDLED 



FREDERICK D. SMITH 
Chief Attorney -Courts 

HARRY G. GUYTON 
Chief Investigator 



5? July l, 1974 
Total felonies 
Total Misdemeanors 
Total Traffic 
Total Juvenile 
Total Conservatorships 
Total Expungements 
Total Rehabilitation 

TOTAL 



June 30, 1975 
6,028 

13,726 

1,982 

3,184 

675 

224 

23 



25, 842 



The Public 
reporting. Prel 
a separate case, 
regardless of th 
charge or whethe 
As a result, eac 
reflect many app 
defendant by the 
Court through di 



Defender has modified its statistical 
iminary hearings are no longer counted as 

but all felonies are counted as one case, 
e number of charges, the nature of the 
r or not there was a preliminary hearing. 
h felony disposition in Superior Court would 
earances , motions etc., on behalf of each 

attorney from arraignment in Municipal 
sposition by the same attorney. 



Not reflected in this report are the several thousand 
consultations with and giving of advice either on the phone 
or in the office. 



FELONY CASES IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

Total New cases in Municipal Court Department 19 ^660 

Special Appearances & Taken over by Private Counsel 1226 

Extradition Cases 1^2 

Disposed of in Department 19, by way of Pleas 655 

Transferred to Department 9, 11 and 12 for 2637 

Preliminary Hearing 

Cases Disposed of in Department 9, 11 and 12 1301 

Cases Held to Answer, Transferred to Superior Court 1336 

New Cases picked up in Superior Court 392 

Cases Pending from 197^-75 Fiscal Year 122 

TOTAL CASES HANDLED IN SUPERIOR COURT 1 85O 
DISPOSITION OF CASES IN SUPERIOR COURT 

Dismissed at some stage (995-1538.5-1385-1382) ^07 

Sentenced to California Rehabilitation Center 26^+ 

Sentenced to County Jail 681 

Granted Probation with no jail time 155 

Sentenced to State Prison 96 

Trials by Jury 82 

Sent to California Youth Authority kO 

Cases still pending in Superior Court 125 

Jury trials in Superior Court 82 

Found Gui 1 ty k3 

Found not gui 1 ty 13 

Found Guilty of Lesser Charge 10 

Hung 10 



Cases picked up in Superior Court 392 

Court Appointed 102 

Grand Jury Indictment 22 

Return from Department of Corrections 36 

Return from California Rehabilitation Center 38 

Motions to Revoke Probation 19^ 

HOMICIDES 

Private Counsel Appointed 13 

Plea 

Manslaughter 1 
Changed plea to guilty 

First Degree 1 

Second Degree 5 

Manslaughter 7 
Found Gui 1 ty 

Fi rst Degree 3 

Second Degree 3 

Manslaughter 3 

Dismissed 2 

Committed k 

TOTAL HOMICIDES k2 



MISDEMEANOR CASES 

Total Misdemeanors (Non Traffic) 13726 

Plead Gui 1 ty 5437 

Plead Guilty to Lesser Charge 1189 

Diverted 246 

Taken over by Private Counsel 1659 

Probation Hearings 460 

Dismissed 2887 

Bench Warrant 1 261 

Modification of Sentence 410 

Sent to Youth Guidance Center 31 

Trials 146 

Found Gui 1 ty ) 105 

) Included are 22 Hund Jury 

Found Not Guilty) Retrials "' 41 

TRAFFIC 

Private Counsel Appointed 171 

Plead Nolo/Gui 1 ty 735 

Bench Warrant Issued 205 

Dismissed all charges 1 83 

Committed for Observation 1 

Revocation or Modification of Probation 152 

Transferred to Department 16 81 

Diversion 3 

Found Not Guilty - Court Trial 9 

Found Guilty - Court Trial 21 

Changed Plea to Nolo/Gui 1 ty 421 

NOTE: Since the determination of financial eligibility of clients has 
been taken over by the Court. There has been a drastic reduction in 
the number of persons represented bv this office. The institution of 






I-. 



Traffic Commissioner's Court has also played a major role in reducing the 
number of Traffic cases handled in this office. 



Peti tions Fi led: 



600W/I: 


176 


601 W/I: 


702 


602 W/I: 


1893 


777/778: 


M3 



3184 



JUVENILE 

Appearances: 

559 

2007 

4933 

1301 

219* 
9019 



Al 1 egations 
187 
901 
2970 
467 
4525 



* We made an additional 219 appearances on behalf of our clients for 
rehearings, transfers from other jurisdictions, representation in 
adult proceedings, and special appearances for other counsel. 



INVESTIGATIONS 



Main Office 
Mental Health 
Juveni le 



TOTAL CASES INVESTIGATED 



782 

675 

255 

1712 



CONSERVATORSHIPS 



Number of Patients 
Conservatorshi ps 

Granted 

Denied 
Wri ts 

Granted 

Denied 
Conti nuances 



675 

663 

352 

287 

12 

4 

8 

21 



Private Counsel 



EXPUNGEMENTS AND SEALINGS 

Superior Court 

Number of Defendants 8 

Number of Appearances 8 

1203.^ 5 

1203. ^a 3 

Municipal Court 

Number of Defendants 216 

Number of Appearances 256 

1203.^ 166 

1203.^a 36 

1203.3 and 1203. h 23 

1203.^5 21 

851.7 10 

Continued into next fiscal year 8 

REHABILITATIONS 

Number of Defendants 23 



EF 



IK 



P65 
*/ 



ERT NICCO 

ic Defender 



OFFICE OF THE^UBLIC OFFENDER 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

HALL OF JUSTICE 

ROOM 205, 850 BRYANT STREET 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103 

(415)553-1671 



IOUCI1ER FARZAN 

F Attorney-Administration 



November 1, 1976 



FREDERICK D. SMIT 
Chief Attorney-Courts 

HARRY G. GUYTON 

Chief Investigator 



^ ANNU AL RE PORT ^ / 4 7 $ - 7 6, 

This Annual Report is submitted for Fiscal Year ending 
June 30, 1976, pursuant to Section 3.500 (e) of the Charter 
of the City and County of San Francisco, and Section 27710 
of the Government Code of the State of California. 



DUTIE S AND RESPON S IBILITIE S 

The San Francisco Public Defender's Office was es- 
tablished on October 15, 1921 and operates pursuant to the 
Charter of the City and County of San Francisco: 

"Section 3.403: ... He shall immediately 
upon the request of a defendant who is 
financially unable to employ counsel , or 
upon order of the court, defend or give 
counsel or advice to any person charged 
with the commission of a crime." 

and is governed by Section 27706 and related Sections of the 
Government Code of the State of California. 



In recent years the mandated services required by the 
Public Defender has been and is continuing to greatly in- 
crease as a result of Local, State and Federal Statutory 
Laws and as a result of State and Federal Appellate Decisions 

Legal representation requirements have been greatly 
expanded in Juvenile Court pursuant to the Welfare and 
Institutions Code and especially by the decision in the case 
of "Application of Gault" , 387 U.S. 1; and in Mental Health 
representation by reason of the Lanterman, Petris, Short 
Act . 

In representing clients, our primary duty and res- 
ponsibility is to see that each receives the benefit of all 



of the rights guaranteed under both the Federal and State 
Constitutions, and that each is granted a fair and impartial 
trial. Court Decisions, both California and Federal con- 
tinue to emphasize increasing degrees of responsibility 
placed upon the lawyer who engages in the defense of a 
person charged with a crime. These decisions rank from 
reversals, based upon inadequacy of counsel, on failure to 
explain and pursue all possible defense, failure to raise a 
defense of diminished capacity etc. Such decisions make it 
increasingly necessary that the Public Defender maintain an 
extremely high degree of skill and competency and that 
defender offices be properly staffed in order to provide 
mandated adequate representation for every client. The 
decisions make it increasingly difficult for this office to 
represent more than one party, where there are multiple 
defendants, thus, accounting for the increasing number of 
private counsels appointed due to conflict of interest. 

The practice of the attorneys engaged in criminal law 
has to a great extent assumed the characteristics of the 
practice of civil attorney, respecting increased paper work 
resulting from the need for more written briefs and motions. 
Public Defenders are now routinely expected to file written 
motions to strike portions of the pleadings, to challenge 
prior convictions, and suppression of evidence, to discover 
prosecution evidence, to order disclosure of informants, to 
challenge procedures and judges, to set aside information 
and indictment, to sever counts and strike surplusages, test 
competency of witness, to challenge identification pro- 
cedures, to strike evidence, and to test sufficiency of 
evidence etc . 

All of these requirements not only require additional 
attorneys, but an increase in supportive services, both 
clerical, secretarial and investigative. 

PERSONNEL^ AND SUM^RY_OF_SERVICE_ PERFORMED 

In order to effectively and efficiently perform our 
mandated services within the limitations imposed by our 
budget, we have organized our operation into five divisions: 

1. Litigation Division (21,377 number of cases). 

This Division is made up of the attorneys providing 
legal representation originating from the Hall of Justice, 
and is sub-divided as fol lows : 

a. Felonies, including both Municipal Court and 
Superior Court (6046 number of cases); 

b. Misdemeanors (14,538 number of cases); 

c. Mental Health (793 number of cases). 



- 2 



At the start of the fiscal year, there were twenty-six 

(26) permanent attorneys, plus three Ceta Attorneys (Temporary) 
performing these functions, with one permanent attorney 
assigned to the Mental Health Division. AL the close of the 
fiscal year, there were twenty-six (26) permanent attorneys, 
eight (3) court appointed attorneys and three (3) Ceta 
attorneys (temporary performing services related to felonies 
and misdemeanors) and one permanent attorney assigned to 
me n t a 1 h e a 1 1 h c a s e s . 

An explanation respecting these personnel changes are 
contained in "Goals and Summary of Corrective Action: infra. 

2. Juvenile Court (3278 number of cases) 

Six (6) deputies are assigned to this Division, and 
during the past fiscal year were sufficient to provide the 
attorney representation required. Because of possible 
Legislative changes to the Juvenile Court Law during the 
next fiscal year, it appears that this number may become 
inadequate. There are no permanent investigators assigned 
to Juvenile Court and only one permanent Clerk Stenographer, 
and one permanent part time Clerk Typist. This division is 
in need of clerical- secretarial and investigative support i^ 7 
adequate legal representation is to be provided. VJe are 
hopeful that this will be improved during the next fiscal 
year . 

3. Investigation (3800 number of cases) 

The necessity for prompt and effective investigation is 
obvious if adequate legal representation is to be given. 
During the past fiscal year, the office had three permanent 
investigators assigned. The 1976-77 budget provides for one 
additional investigator. Even so, four investigators is 
woefully inadequate for the requirements of an office of 
this size. If we are to provide adequate legal representation 
as mandated by law, the number of investigators will have to 
be increased or provisions made to contract out the overload 
to private investigators. 

4. Administration 

This Division includes the Public Defender and Chief 
Deputy Public Defender, plus a permanent clerical staff 
consisting of three Clerk Typists, one SonLor Clerk Typist, 
owe Clerk Stenographer, two Legal Stenographers and one 
Confidential Secretary. This Division provides all oi the 
Administration, clerical and secretarial services required, 
including back-up assistance to the Juvenile Court Division. 



- 3 



Once again it is quite obvious that this is an in- 
adequate staff to perforin the multi duties required. 
However, we are hopeful that the addition in our 1976-77 
budget of two permanent transcribers and the allocation of 
the Word Processing System will greatly improve the ren- 
dering of these necessary services. 

5. Volunteers and interns (31,769 number of hours) 

In order to make the attorneys as efficient and pro- 
ductive as possible, and remove the necessity of performing 
nonlegal duties, and supplemental legal activities that do 
not need the immediate attention of an attorney, the office 
has embarked on an extensive volunteer-intern program. 

The services provided have not only relieved the 
permanent staff of time consuming activities, but have 
increased the qua! ity of the services rendered to the 
clients. All of this of course, at no cost to the City. 

Part of the volunteer program has been conducted under 
the auspices of the Northern California Service League and 
consists of one vitally needed full time coordinator, and 
student- interns from the various Bay Area Colleges and 
Universities and those who volunteer their services on an 
individual basis. This group provided a minimum of 12,469 
hours of s service. The prestigious law office of Pillsbury, 
Madison and Sutro has for the past year, and is continuing 
to do so, provided a full time attorney, from their litigation 
team with a change over every three months. A minimum of 
2000 hours was provided. 

During the summer of 1976, the San Francisco Foundation 
in conjunction with Law Students Civil Rights Research 
Council funded twenty law students during the summer months 
for 6400 hours. During the year, we have had lav; students 
as part of clinical training programs for Bay Area Law 
Schools contributing a minimum of 7200 hours. Individual 
attorneys on a volunteer basis, rendered services for a 
minimum of 3700 hours. Ml of this has made a tremendous 
contribution to the quality of our services and allowed us 
to perform as well as we did considering the severe budget 
restrictions that had been imposed upon us. 



- 4 - 



CASELOAD_ SUMMARY 

TOTAL 249 76 

Felonies 6046 

Misdemeanors 14538 

Mental Health 793 

Juvenile 3278 

Expungements, Sealings and 210 
Certificates of 
Rehabilitations 

Writs and Appeals 111 

TOTAL 249 76 

Total Investigations 3800 

Total Volunteer and Interns 3971 
eight hour days con- 
tributed gratis 

The Caseload Summary includes only matters where Court 
action was required. It does not include several thousand 
clients serviced on an advice and assistance basis. 

One case may include multiple counts or charges. A 
plea of guilty to one count or charge is listed as a con- 
viction regardless of whether there was an acquittal or 
dismissal of some of the charges or counts. Each case 
reflects many appearances from interview through dispo- 
sition . 



NATIONAL ADVISORY^ COMMISSION _0N_ CRIMINAL 
JUSTICE STANDARDS AND" GOALS 

Standard 13.12, Workload of the Public Defenders 

The caseload of a public de Tender office should not 
exceed the following: felonies per attorney per year: not 
more than 150; misdemeanors (excluding traffic) per attorney 
not more than 400; juvenile court cases per attorney per 
year: not more than 200; mental health act cases per 
attorney per year: not more than 200; and appeals per 
attorney per year: not more than 25. 



- j 



SUMMARY OF SUPERIOR COURT FELONIES 



Total Felony Cases in Superior Court 

Cases Pending at start of year 
New Cases 

Transferred to Superior Court 1031 
Originating in Superior Court 248 

Closed after partial service 

Conflict, Private Counsel 135 

(P>W) Fail Lire to Anpear 66 



1655 



376 



1279 



201 



Disposed of without sentence 
Dismissed, not guilty 

Disposed of by sentence /commitment 

Probation (No confinement) 75 

County Jail (Many as condition of 438 

Probation) 

California Youth Authority 36 

State Prison 139 

California Rehabilitation Center 124 

Atascadero State Hospital 6^4 

Probation Revocations 

Pending 



125 



876 
151 



1_35 3 
302 



SUMMARY OF FELONIES IN MUNICIPAL COURT 



Total Felonies 



4391 



Closed with partial service 

Conflicts, private counsel 
(BW) Failure to Appear 



1121 
134 



1245 



Disposition at Lower Court Level 
Diverted (1000 PC) 
Plea to lesser Charge 
Dismissed (1382-1385 PC) 
Extradition Cases 



78 
918 
455 
122 



1573 



Transferred to other courts 

Held to answer to Superior Court 902 

Certified to Superior Court 106 

Indicted by Grand Jury 23 

Transferred to Juvenile Court 10 

Reduced to and transferred 337 
as misdemeanor 

Pendi ng 



1378 4196 
195 



SUMMARY OF MISDEMEANOR DISPOSITIONS 



Total Cases 

Closed after partial service 

Conflicts, Private Counsel, Pro Per 
(BW) Failure to appear 



845 
837 



14538 



1682 



Disposed of without sentence 
Diverted (1000 PC) 
Dismissed-discharged 
Certified Superior Court (1368 PC) 
Referred Juvenile Court 
Modification of Sentence 

Disposed of by plea or trial 

Plea of guilty or nolo contendere 
Change of plea to lesser charge 
Revocation of Probation 
By trial: Court 61 - Jury 41 

Pending 



232 

3636 

9 

13 

78 



4862 

2417 

1045 

102 



3968 



8426 



14076 



462 



SUMMARY MENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 



Total Clients (Excluding Writs) 

Conservatorships 768 

Developmentally disabled 2_5 

Location of clients requiring visitations 

Lanterman, Petris Short Act 

Napa State Hospital 438 

Atascadero State Hospital 20 

Camarillo State Hospital 4 

Palo Alto 42 

San Jose 47 

Fairfield 2] 

Petaluma 10 
Vallejo, Hayward, Oakland, Santa Rosa 
San Rafael, Menlo Park, Morgan Hill, 

Navato, Stockton, Richmond, Los Gatos 3 3 

San Francisco 153 



793 



768 



Developmentally Disabled 
Agnew State Hospital 
Stockton State Hospital 
Sonoma State Hospital 
Napa State Hospital 
San Francisco State Hospital 



4 
2 
3 
12 
4 



25 



- 7 - 



JUVENILE COURT SUMMARY 



Total Rep 


resented 








Petitions 


filed: 


Allegations : 


App 


ea ranees 


600 W&I 


133 


140 




606 


601 W&I 


411 


517 




1513 


602 W&I 


2177 


3447 




7029 


777-8 W&I 


269 


293 




1106 


Others 


288 

3278 










4397 


10254 



3278 



INVEST I GAT I ON SUMMARY 

Total Investigations 3800 

Misdemeanors 613 

Felonies 1783 

Mental Health 702 3098 

Juvenile Court 702 



EXPUNGEMENTS , SEALINGS AND _ CERTIFICATES 
OF REHABILITATION 

Total 210 

Superior Court 30 

Municipal Court 1_80 

WRITS AND APPEALS 

Total 111 

From Superior Court 

Felony Cases 11 

Mental Health 84 

95 
From Municipal Court 1J5 



8 - 



VOLUNTEER -_JNTERN_ SUMMARY 

Total Hours Contributed 31769 

Total Eight (8) Hour days contributed 3971 

Volunteers (Non-Legal) 

Northern California Service League; 

Colleges and University Programs 
Individual Basis 12469 hours 

Volunteers (legal) 

Pillsbury Madison and Sutro (Law Firm) 2000 hours 
Individual Attorneys 3700 hours 

Law Students 

Funded by San Francisco Foundation 6400 hours 
Clinical Programs of Bay Area Law 

Schools Z?Q0 hours 

Approximately Minimum Hours 31,769 

GOALS AND SUMMARY OF CORRECTIVE ACTION 

The goal of the office is simply to provide, constitutionally 
mandated, adequate legal representation to all eligible 
clients of the Public Defender. At the start of the fiscal 
year, it was generally well known that the Public Defender 
could not adequately perform his mandated duties because of 
inadequate staffing in both attorney and supportive staff 
and insufficiency of materials and supplies. This situation 
was documented by in-depth evaluations conducted by both 
inhouse and independent sources including the San Francisco 
Bar Association. 

On October 9, 1975, the Public Defender initiated 
action by filing a motion to be relieved as counsel on the 
basis that he could not adequately represent all of the 
clients eligible for his services . After numerous court 
appearances, and a full evidentiary hearings conducted by 
the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court, the Court found 
the allegations of the Public Defender to be true, namely 
that he did not have the ability to provide adequate and 
timely representation to all of his clients and as a result 
relieved the Public Defender from providing representation 
in certain misdemeanor cases . 

Although the Court received testimony concerning the 
distribution of all the attorneys in the Public Defender's 
Office, it took corrective action respecting representation 
in the Municipal Court, and specifically in misdemeanor 
cases, over which it, of course, had jurisdiction. The 
Court found that seven deputies were necessary in each of 



the two general departments, two deputies in the traffic 
departments, and one supervising attorney. Since these 
departments handling misdemeanors were staffed by a total of 
five permanent attorneys, and three Ceta Attorneys, the 
Court proceeded to appoint at public expense eight attorneys 
to staff these courts, and in the interest of efficiency and 
economy, requested the Public Defender to provide super- 
vision and control. 

These attorney positions required to staff the misdemeanor 
courts, were approved by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors 
and made part of the Public Defender's 1976-77 Budget. 

Although this action, improved legal representation in 
misdemeanor cases, the Municipal Court could not act or 
consider the need for additional attorneys in the Superior 
Court handling felony cases nor did the action in any way 
consider the need for staffing the Mental Health Division or 
supportive staff needs. 

The office has never been allocated attorneys or 
supportive staff to handle mental health cases. The Lanterman, 
Petris, Short Act has imposed extensive requirements of 
visitation and representation that did not formerly exist. 
Manpower allocation of both attorneys and supportive ser- 
vices will be a priority during the next fiscal year. 

As noted infra there will have to be a determination 
made during the next fiscal year respecting the insufficient 
staffing of the Investigation Division. The allocation in 
Budget 1976-77 of a total of four permanent investigators to 
handle the huge caseload is patently inadequate. There must 
be an increase in permanent staff or in the alternative 
provisions made to contract out the overload to private 
investigators . 

Respecting the clerical/secretarial shortage it is 
believed that the Word Processing System approved in the 
Budget 1976-77 and adding two transcribers will greatly 
improve these necessary services. 

The Office will continue its volunteer-intern program 
and every other possible alternate source of assistance in 
order to improve the quality of service in the most efficient 
and productive manner possible. 



CONCLUSION 

As noted in the contents of this report, the Public 
Defender continues to have a huge and ever more complex 
caseload. However, it must be reported that during the year 



- 10 - 



considerable imp 
representation p 
Although there i 
desired goa 1 , ex 
the many who hav 
the a dmini strati 
Among these are 
Municipal Court, 
of San Francisco 
the Northern Cal 
Foundation, and 
the many volunte 
of time and effo 
numerous public 
possible for us 
and of course, t 
continuously str 
under extremely 



rovement respecting th 
rovided by this office 
s still a long way to 
pressions of appreciat 
e contributed their ef 
on of criminal justice 
the Mayor, the Board o 
especially the Presid 
, especially the San F 
ifornia Service League 
the Law Firm of Pillsb 
ers and interns , who d 
rt and the help and as 
and private organizati 
to survive during a ve 
o a most able and dedi 
ive to provide a high 
adverse conditions . 



e quality of legal 

has been accomplished, 
go to achieve our 
ion are appropriate to 
forts toward improving 

in San Francisco, 
f Supervisors , the 
ing Judge, the lawyers 
rancisco Bar Association 
, the San Francisco 
ury , Madison & Sutro, 
onated so many hours 
sistance given by 
ons , who made it 
ry difficult period 
cated staff, who 
quality of service 



Respectfully submitted, 



ROBERT NICCO 
Public Defender 



RN/llb 



- 11 - 



ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
JULY 1, 1976 THRU JUNE 30, 1977 



L/ 



ROBERT NICCO 
Public Defender 



°CT 1 5 1979 

DOCUMENTS r^ 



-USRARy 



SUMttARY 



27,252 persons were represented by the Public 
Defender during the 1976-77 fiscal year. 

15,775 persons who were charged with a misdemeanor 
offense in San Francisco were represented by the Public 
Defender. 467, of those persons were not convicted of 
any offense. 

3,830 persons who were charged with a felony in 
San Francisco were represented by the Public Defender. 
57% of those persons were not convicted of the felony. 

1,204 persons who were faced with a motion to 
revoke probation in San Francisco were represented by 

the Public Defender. 

2,717 persons were represented by the Public 
Defender in Juvenile Court. 

2,363 persons were represented in Traffic Court by 
the Public Defender. 

1,363 persons were represented in mental health 
matters, which was a seventy (707*) percent increase 
from the previous year. 

The caseload summary includes only matters where 
court appearance was involved. It does not include 
several thousand citizens served on advice and assist- 
ance basis. 

One case may include multiple counts or charges. 
A plea or finding of guilt to one count or charge is 
listed as a conviction regardless of whether there was 
an acquittal or dismissal of some of the charges or 
counts. Each case reflects many appearances from 
interview to disposition. 



- 1 - 



REPRESENTATION OF THE CLIENT WHO IS CHARGED WITH A MISDEMEANOR 

The first step in representing the client who is charged 
with a misdemeanor is the interview of the client. During this 
fiscal year, Deputy Public Defenders interviewed 15,775 clients 
who were charged with a misdemeanor. 

At the instruction and arraignment hearing, which is the 
first step in the misdemeanor court procedure, 5,034 clients were 
discharged without a complaint being filed and 157 clients were 
diverted to the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project. After 
a conference with the District Attorney, 4,393 clients pled 
guilty to at least one of the allegations with which the client 
was charged and 596 pled guilty to a lesser charge. 

At any stage of the proceedings, if it is determined by the 
attorney who is handling the, case that an investigation is 
necessary, an investigation is undertaken. The investigators of 
the Public Defender's Office conducted 505 investigations into 
misdemeanor matters. 

Following instruction and arraignment, the client then moves 
into the pretrial hearing procedure. The Public Defender repre- 
sented 7,104 persons at pretrial hearings. A total of 794 cases 
were taken over by private counsel- -either because the client 
hired a private lawyer, or because the Court declared a conflict 
with another client of the Public Defender's Office in the same 
case. 6,307 pretrial conferences were held in which 2,323 cases 
were dismissed and 3,893 clients pled guilty. 

A total of 91 misdemeanor cases went to trial--22 in front 
of a Judge, sitting without a jury, and 69 with a jury. Twenty- 
five percent of the trials resulted in a not-guilty finding. 

Thus, 46% of the clients who were charged with a misdemeanor 
were not convicted of any charge. 

REPRESENTATION OF THE CLIENT WHO IS CHARGED WITH A FELONY 

Generally, the District Attorney files a complaint In the 
Municipal Court charging the defendant with a felony. The Public 
Defender represented 3,711 defendants in Municipal Court who x%rere 
charged with a felony. In 952 cases, after the defendant had 
been interviewed, the client was able to retain private counsel, 
or the Court declared a conflict and appointed a private lawyer. 

In 29 cases, the client was referred to the San Francisco 
Pretrial Diversion Project. And in 502 cases, the District 
Attorney reduced the matter to a misdemeanor before the next step 
in the Court procedure. 

- 2 - 



The next step is known as a preliminary examination which is 
an evidentiary hearing at which the District Attorney must present 
sufficient evidence for the Judge to make a factual finding that 
there is sufficient evidence to believe that the defendant had 
committed a crime. There were 2,228 such hearings which resulted 
in a holding to answer by the Judge in 1,212 cases; In 452 cases, 
the Judge dismissed the action for lack of evidence; and in 269 
cases, the Judge reduced the matter to a misdemeanor. 

For various reasons, the preliminary examination may be 
waived and the client certified to the Superior Court. There 
were 145 such cases. Another five cases were certified to 
Juvenile Court because of the age of the defendant. In 145 
cases, the Judge determined that the defendant did not have the 
mental capacity to stand trial and those matters, too, were 
certified to the Superior Court. 

1,357 felony cases were sent to Superior Court from the 
Municipal Court. At the beginning of the fiscal year, the, 
Office had 302 cases pending and, in addition, 139 cases were 
assigned to the Public Defender because either the defendant 
appeared in Superior Court as a result of an Indictment, or was 
unable to retain private counsel at the Superior Court level. As 
a result, the total workload at the Initial Superior Court 
hearing was 1,793 clients. Of that sum, 193 clients were able to 
retain private counsel. 

On a motion to suppress the evidence or a motion to dismiss 
because of the lack of evidence presented at the preliminary 
examination, or where the District Attorney decided not to prose- 
cute the matter, 115 cases were dismissed. 

1,490 clients went to Superior Court pretrial hearing. At 
the pretrial hearing, 642 pled guilty. At the end of the fiscal 
year, 275 cases were continued to the next fiscal year. 

In the trial courts, 94 cases went to jury trial and 59 
cases went to trial without a jury. A total of 530 attorney days 
were spent in trial. 

Thus, 57% of the clients who were initially charged with a 
felony were either not convicted of a felony or not convicted of 
any charge at all. A total of 381 Investigations were conducted 
in felony matters at preliminary hearing stage. 

The following chart demonstrates the ultimate disposition of 
those clients who were found guilty or who pled guilty to a 
felony. 



- 3 - 



DISPOSITION NO. OF CLIENTS 

California Youth Authority commitment 45 
Probation with a conditional county 

jail sentence 627 

Probation without county jail 159 
California Rehabilitation Center 

commitment 108 

Mental hospital commitment 56 

State prison commitment 201 
TOTAL I71T5"* 



REPRESENTATION OF THE CLIENT WHO IS FACED WITH A MOTION TO REVOKE 

In misdemeanor and felony courts, as well as in the traffic 
court, the defendant is often placed on probation as part of the 
sentence. 

When a defendant is charged, by a motion to revoke, with an 
alleged violation of the terms of probation, the matter is set 
for a court hearing. At these hearings the defendant is not 
entitled to trial by jury. 

In the Superior Court, a total of 450 clients were Involved 
In motion to revoke; in the Municipal Court, a total of 515 
clients were so represented; and in the traffic court, 239; all 
for a total of 1,024 motion to revoke probation cases. 

REPRESENTATION OF THE CLIENT IN TRAFFIC COURT 

A total of 2,363 clients were represented In the Traffic 
Court which is a misdemeanor court. Of the total clients repre- 
sented in Traffic Court, 33% received a dismissal of all charges. 

REPRESENTATION 0^ THE CLIENT IN JUVENILE COURT 

During the fiscal year, the Office represented 2,717 persons 
who were the subject of a Juvenile Court action and the Deputy 
Public Defenders made a total of 10,527 appearances. Many of the 
Juvenile Court cases are civil in nature and require different 
proceedings than is normally found in a criminal action. 

REPRESENTATION OF THE CLIENT IN THE MENTAL HEALTH COURT 

The Courts appointed the Public Defender to represent 1363 
persons in mental health court. This is an Increase from 793 
during the previous fiscal year, or a 70% increase in one year. 

- 4 - 



The increase was brought about by 3tate legislation that mandates 
the Public Defender to represent the developmentally disabled and 
the gravely disabled who have been the subject of a wardship or 
conservatorship proceeding. The legislation requires that the 
public defender attorneys travel to State and private hospitals 
to personally interview the client, but sufficient funds were not 
made available for personnel and transportation costs. Budget 
support of the increased workload was unavailable through routine 
channels, so the Public Defender petitioned the Courts for relief. 
The petition was pending at the end of the fiscal year. 

SUPPORT SERVICES 

Investigations 

There must be prompt and effective investigations if adequate 
legal representation is to be provided. 

In 1,362 cases, investigation was undertaken of which 505 
were misdemeanors, 881 felonies, and 473 juvenile cases. 

In addition, during trials of cases, there was need for 
taking and processing of 567 photographs, preparation of 52 
diagrams of the scene, obtaining 189 hospital records, 105 
business records, and serving of 904 subpoenas. 

Word Processing 

In recent years, the Courts have required the Public Defender 
Attorneys to make all of their motions in written form. Until 
this fiscal year, the Public Defender Attorneys did not have 
sufficient stenographic assistance to satisfy the paper-work 
requirements. Thanks to the ?Iayor's and the Board of Supervisors' 
approval, the Public Defender's Office has a Word Processing 
System which ha3 enabled the attorneys to dictate at anytime from 
their home, as well as the office, and to have their dictation 
product available during the next working day. This has materially 
enhanced the effectiveness and quality of the Public Defenders. 

Pro-Bono Assistance 

Several of the large law firms, specifically, Pillsbury, 
Madison and Sutro, and, more recently, Morrison and Forrester 
have assigned attorneys to the Public Defender's Office on a 
full-time basis. These attorneys have come from the court- 
litigation staffs of those large law firms. Together, they have 
contributed 4,127 hours of attorney time to the City. Moreover, 
a number of other private lawyers have contributed their time 
freely and voluntarily. These attorneys have contributed a great 
deal of experience and expertise to the criminal justice system. 

- 5 - 



Volunteer Service s 

The 1'Torthern California Service League has provided social 
worker assistance, paralegal and post-release services, to the 
Public Defender's Office. This is an ongoing program that is 
without cost to the City. During the fiscal year, the League 
contributed 0,379 hours of volunteer time. 

Law Student Interns 

Under the provisions of the Business and Professions Code, 
a number of students from the San Francisco Bay Area law schools 
have contributed 16,770 hours to the Public Defender's Office. 
Many of the lawyers in the Public Defender's Office are Certified 
Criminal Law Specialists; and as such, are recognized by the law 
schools for their expertise in the field of criminal law. The 
students that are sent to the Public Defender's Office are 
privileged to work under those specialists. Their function is 
primarily that of research and assisting in trial preparation. 
All of these services have been without costs to the City. 

The purpose of the Public Defender is to provide constitu- 
tionally-mandated-adequate-legal representation to all eligible 
clients. As noted in the contents of this report, the Public 
Defender continues to have a large and complex caseload. 

During the year there was an increase in personnel, equipment, 
and supplies, all contributing to enhance the quality of legal 
representation. More is needed especially in allocation of 
office space and communications. Nevertheless, it is appro- 
priate to express appreciation to the many who have contributed 
their efforts towards improving the administration of Criminal 
Justice in San Francisco. Among these are the Mayor, the Board 
of Supervisors, the Superior and Municipal Courts, the Lawyers of 
San Francisco, the Northern California Service League, the law 
firms of Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro and Morrison and Forrester, 
the many volunteers and interns who donated so many hours of time 
and effort, and the help and assistance given by numerous public 
and private organizations, and, of course, to a most able and 
dedicated staff who continuously strive to provide a higher 
quality of service. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/< !v. - , 

ROBERT NICCO 
Public Defender 

RNrctp 

- 6 - 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



IRJ NICCO 
Defender 



DUCIIFR FAR7.AN 
Attorney -Administration 



; 7-7<? 



HALL OF JUSTICE 

ROOM 205, 850 BRYANT STREET 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103 

(415)553-1671 



September 15, 197: 



/ANNUAL REPORT 



FREDERICK D. SMITH 
Chief Attorney -Courts 



<q 7 , HARRY G.GUYTON 
Chief Investigator 



3UMENTS DEP1 





This Annual Report is submitted for Fiscal Year ending June 
30, 1978 pursuant to Section 3.500 (e) of the Charter of the City 
and County of San Francisco, and Section 27710 of the Government 
Code of the State of California. 



DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

The San Francisco Public Defender's Office was established 
on October 15, 1921 and operates pursuant to the Charter of the 
City and County of San Francisco: 

"Section 3.403: ... He shall immediately 
upon the request of a defendant who is 
financially unable to employ counsel, or 
upon order of the court, defend or give 
counsel or advice to any person charged 
with the commission of a crime." 

and is governed by Section 27706 and related Sections of the 
Government Code of the State of California. 

In recent years the mandated services required by the Public 
Defender has been and is continuing to increase as a result of 
Local, State and Federal Statutory Laws and as a result of State 
and Federal Appellate Decisions. 

Legal representation requirements have been greatly expanded 
in Juvenile Court pursuant to the Welfare and Institutions Code 
and especially by the decision in the case of "Application of 
Gault" , 387 U.S. 1; and in Mental Health representation by reason 
of the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act. 



In representing clients, our primary duty and responsibility 
is to see that each receives the benefit of all of the rights 
guaranteed under both the Federal and State Constitutions, and 
that each is granted a fair and impartial trial. Court Decisions, 
both California and Federal continue to emphasize increasing 
degrees of responsibility placed upon the lawyer who engages in 
the defense of a person charged with a crime. These decisions 
rank from reversals, based upon inadequacy of counsel, on failure 
to explain and pursue all possible defense, failure to raise a 
defense of diminished capacity etc. Such decisions make it 
increasingly necessary that the Public Defender maintain an 
extremely high degree of skill and competency and that defender 
offices be properly staffed in order to provide mandated adequate 
representation for every client. The decisions make it increasingly 
difficult for this office to represent more than one party, where 
there are multiple defendants, thus, accounting for the increasing 
number of private counsels appointed due to conflict of interest. 

The practice of the attorneys engaged in criminal law has to 
a great extend assumed the characteristics of the practice of 
civil attorney, respecting increased paper work resulting from 
the need for more written briefs and motions. Public Defenders 
are now routinely expected to file written motions to strike 
portions of the pleadings, to challenge prior convictions, and 
suppression of evidence, to discover prosecution evidence, to 
order disclosure of informants, to challenge procedures and 
judges, to set aside information and indictment, to sever counts 
and strike surplusages, test competency of witness, to challenge 
identification procedures, to strike evidence, and to test 
sufficiency of evidence etc. 

All of these requirements not only require additional 
attorneys, but an increase in supportive services, both clerical, 
secretarial and investigative. 

The figures cited include only matters where court appearances 
were involved. It does not include several thousand citizens 
served on advice' and assistance basis. 

One case may include multiple counts or charges. A plea or 
finding of guilt to one count or charge is listed as a conviction 
regardless of whether there was an acquittal or dismissal of some 
of the charges or counts. Each case reflects many appearances 
from interview to disposition. 

REPRESENTATION OF THE CLIENT WHO IS CHARGED WITH A MISDEMEANOR 

The first step in representing the client who is charged 
with a misdemeanor is the interview of the client. During this 
fiscal year, Deputy Public Defenders interviewed 16,692 clients 
who were charged with a misdemeanor. - 



- 2 - 



At the instruction and arraignment hearing, which is the 
first step in the misdemeanor court procedure, 2,485 clients were 
discharged without a complaint being filed and 1,116 clients were 
diverted to various diversion programs. After a conference with 
the District Attorney, 3,026 clients pled guilty to at least one 
of the allegations with which the client was charged and 981 pled 
guilty to a lesser charge. 

At any stage of the proceedings, if it is determined by the 
attorney who is handling the case that an investigation is necessary, 
an investigation is undertaken. The investigators of the Public 
Defender's Office conducted 723 investigations into misdemeanor 
matters . 

Following instruction and arraignment, the client then moves 
into the pretrial hearing procedure. The Public Defender represented 
9,083 persons at pretrial hearings. A total of 397 cases were 
taken over by private counsel — either because the client hired a 
private lawyer, or because the Court declared a conflict with 
another client of the Public Defender's Office in the same case. 
9,551 pretrial conferences were held in which 3,561 cases were 
dismissed and 5,017 clients pled guilty. 

A total of 108 misdemeanor cases went to trial. 



REPRESENTATION OF THE CLIENT WHO IS CHARGED WITH A FELONY 

Generally, the District Attorney files a complaint in the 
Municipal Court charging the defendant with a felony. The Public 
Defender represented' 4 , 910 defendants in Municipal Court who were 
charged with a felony. - In 561 cases, after the defendant had 
been interviewed, the client was able to retain private counsel, 
or the Court declared a conflict and appointed a private lawyer. 

In 37 cases, the client was referred to the San Francisco 
Pretrial Diversion Project. And in 804 cases, the District 
Attorney reduced the matter to a misdemeanor before the next step 
in the Court procedure. 

The next step is known as a preliminary examination which is 
an evidentiary hearing at which the District Attorney must 
present sufficient evidence for the Judge to make a factual 
finding that there is a sufficient evidence to believe that the 
defendant has committed a crime. There were 3,508 such hearings 
which resulted in a holding to answer by the Judge in 1,091 
cases . 



- 3 - 



For various reasons, the preliminary examination may be 
waived and the client certified to the Superior Court. There 
were 248 such cases. Another 49 cases were certified to Juvenile 
Court because of the age of the defendant. 

1,339 felony cases were sent to Superior Court from the 
Municipal Court. At the beginning of the fiscal year, the Office 
had 289 cases pending and, in addition, 176 cases were assigned 
to the Public Defender because either the defendant appeared in 
Superior Court as a result of an indictment, or was unable to 
retain private counsel at the Superior Court level. As a result, 
the total workload at the initial Superior Court hearing was 
1,804 clients. Of that sum, 169 clients were able to retain 
private counsel. 

On a motion to suppress the evidence or a motion to dismiss 
because of the lack of evidence presented at the preliminary 
examination, or where the District Attorney decided not to prosecute 
the matter, 124 cases were dismissed. 

1,511 clients went to Superior Court pretrial hearing. At 
the pretrial hearing, 681 pled guilty. At the end of the fiscal 
year, 307 cases were continued to the next fiscal year. 

In the trial courts, 107 cases went to jury trial and 64 
cases went to trial without jury. A total of 597 attorney days 
were spent in trial. 

A total of 950 investigations were condcuted in felony 
matters at preliminary hearing stage. 

REPRESENTATION OF THE CLIENT WHO IS FACED WITH A MOTION TO REVOKE 

In misdemeanor and felony courts, as well as in the traffic 
court, the defendant is often placed on probation as part of the 
sentence. 

When a defendant is charged, by a motion to revoke, with an 
alleged violation of the terms of probation, the matter is set 
for a court . hearing . At these hearings the defendant is not 
entitled to trial by jury. 

In the Superior Court, a total of 524 clients were involved 
in motion to revoke; in the Municipal Court, a total of 453 
clients were so represented; and in the traffic court 312. 



REPRESENTATION OF THE CLIENT IN TRAFFIC COURT 

A total of 2,877 clients charged with serious misdemeanor 
traffic offenses were represented. 



4 - 



REPRESENTATION OF THE CLIENT IN JUVENILE COURT 

During the fiscal year, the Office represented 2,982 persons 
who were the subject of a Juvenile Court action and the Deputy 
Public Defenders made a total of 9,423 appearances. Many of the 
Juvenile Court cases are civil in nature and require different 
proceedings than is normally found in a criminal action. Moreover 
legislative mandates have increased the complexity of Juvenile 
Court matters . 



REPRESENTATION OF THE CLIENT IN THE MENTAL HEALTH COURT 

The Courts appointed the Public Defender to represent 1959 
persons in mental health court. 

Criminal Court Proceedings (total clients represented) 219 
Probate " " 51 

Lanterman, Petris, Short Proceedings " 1679 

Of the 1,238 Lanterman, Petris, Short Act clients represented 
in court hearings, 637 of these clients were in placements facilities 
outside of San Francisco County. Since all clients and their 
records must be seen before court in order to provide adequate 
representation, travel was necessary to Napa State Hospital, 
Atascadero State Hospital, Patton State Hospital, Stockton State 
Hospital and Camarillo State Hospital as well as various private 
facilities in Santa Cruz, Morgan Hill, San Jose, Palo Alto, 
Redwood City, Menlo Park, Belmont, Millbrae, Burlingame, Los 
Gatos , Woodacre, Hayward , Castro Valley, Oakland, Alameda, 
Vallejo, Fairfield, Fresno, Daly City, Santa Rosa, Petaluma, 
Novato and Sunnyvale. 

Investigations 

There must be prompt and effective investigations if adequate 
legal representation is to be -provided. 

In 2263 cases, investigation was undertaken of which 723 
were misdemeanors, 950 felonies, and 90 juvenile cases. 

Administration 

This Division includes the Public Defender and Chief Deputy 
Public Defender, plus a permanent clerical staff consisting of 
three clerk typists, one senior clerk typist, and one clerk 
stenographer, two legal stenographers, one transcriber and one 
senior transcriber and one confidential secretary/Executive 
Assistant. This division provides all of the administration, 
clerical and secretarial services required, including back-up 
assistance to the Juvenile Court Division. 



- 5 - 



Law Student Interns 

Under the provisions of the Business and Professions Code, a 
number of students from the San Francisco Bay Area Law Schools 
have contributed 15,475 hours to the Public Defender's Office. 
Many of the lawyers in the Public Defender's Office are Certified 
Criminal Law Specialists; and as such, are recognized by the law 
schools for their expertise in the field of criminal law. The 
students that are sent to the Public Defender's Office are privileged 
to work under those specialists. Their function is primarily 
that of research and assisting in trial preparation. All of 
these services have been without cost to the City. 

The purpose of the Public Defender is to provide constitutionally- 
mandated-adeqaute-legal representation to all eligible clients. 
As noted in the contents of this report, the Public Defender 
continues to have a large and complex caseload. 

During the year, we were again fortunate to have the assistance 
of the Northern California Service League which provided social 
services and assistance to our clients, which we are unable to 
provide . 

During the year, the law firm of Pillsbury, Madison and 
Sutro continued to provide volunteer attorneys on a full time 
basis. Also during the past year, the law firm of Morrison and 
Forrester provided volunteer assistance. This volunteer program 
has been of tremedous help to the Public Defender and contributed 
in the improvement of total legal representation to our clients. 
We are most grateful for the support given to us. 

CONCLUSION 

We wish to express appreciation to the volunteers and interns 
who donate so many hours of time and effort, for the help and 
assistance received from numerous public and private organizations 
and of course, to a most able staff who continuously strive to 
provide a higher ' quality of services. 



Respectfully submitted, 



( 



ROBERT" NICCO V 
Public Defender 



RN/llb 



- 6 - 






ANNUAL REPORT 
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
FISCAL YEAR 1978-1979 



JEFF BROWN PETER G. KEANE 

Public Defender Chief Attorney 



OCT 4 19 7 ' 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 
>UBUC L 



ISABEL HUIE 
Confidential Secretary 



ANNUAL REPORT TO THE MAYOR 
FROM THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 
Fiscal Year 1978-1979 
Table of Contents 

I . INTRODUCTION 
II. STAFF 
III. STAFF WORK 

A. Municipal Court Felony Unit 

B. Superior Court Felony Unit 

C. Municipal Court Misdemeanor Unit 

D. Mental Health Unit 

E. Juvenile Unit 

F. Investigation 
IV. BUDGET 

V. GOALS FOR THE FUTURE 

A. Improve Quality of Representation 

B. Affirmative Action 

C. Increase Language Service 

D. Stabilize Permanent Staff 

E. Enlarge and Improve Work Facilities 

F. Written Policies 

G. Community Outreach 

H. Community Advisory Committee 
I. Reduce Caseloads 

Footnotes 



INTRODUCTION 

The primary obligation of the Public Defender of the 
City and County of San Francisco is to maintain a just and 
honest balance within the system of criminal justice. In 
doing this, the Public Defender provides protection to the 
least powerful and most-disliked people of the community — 
the indigent accused. 

The Office of the Public Defender is a creation of the 
Charter. Specifically, the Charter provides that the Public 
Defender will represent persons charged with the commission 
of crime and without money for their own lawyer.— By the 
establishment of the Public Defender's Office, this city 
fulfills a requirement placed on every community by the 
Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, that is: to guarantee 
that every individual, regardless of economic status, has 
the effective assistance of counsel when accused of a crime. 

The Constitution of the State of California contains 

2/ 
the same guarantee.— In recent years, the courts have set 

forth guidelines for the implementation of these constitutional 

3/ 
guarantees.— They have stated that the representation of 

indigent accused must be zealous, thorough, and at all times 



—Section 3.403, Charter, 



2/ 

—Article I, Section 13, California Constitution. 

-^ People v. Ibarra (1964) 60 C2d 460, 464. 



must reflect the highest standards of the legal professional. 
The courts have also said that public defender offices must 
have sufficient resources to meet their responsibilities and 

that this requirement is an inescapable obligation of every 

•4. 4/ 
community.— 

In San Francisco the Public Defender is elected rather 

5/ 
than appointed.— As such, he is not subject to the danger 

of instant dismissal if he becomes unpopular with those who 

hold political power. Therefore, the Public Defender can be 

a forceful and independent advocate for the interests of the 

indigent. Also, because the Public Defender is a political 

figure, the Public Defender can serve as a moral force in 

the community and should speak out vigorously on matters of 

social, economic, and political justice. 

The Charter gives the Public Defender the primary duty 

of representing persons in criminal cases. In addition, 

various state laws require the Public Defender to provide 

6 / 
legal counsel for the mentally ill in conservatorship cases,— 

for juveniles in the Juvenile Division of the Superior 

7/ 
Court,— and for parents whose parental rights are suspended 

or terminated.— 



4/ 

- Ligda v. Superior Court (1970) 5 CA3d 811, 85 CR 741 

5/ 

—Section 3.403, Charter. 

—Section 4000, et seq. , Welfare and Institutions Code 

7/ 

—Section 634, Welfare and Institutions Code. 

8/ 

—Section 317, Welfare and Institutions Code. 



- 2 - 



The Office of the Public Defender acquires its clients 

either by appointment of court or at the request of the 

9/ . . 

accused.— To be eligible for Public Defender representation, 

an individual must be unable to hire a private lawyer. The 

determination can be made either by the court or by the 

Public Defender. — ' 



STAFF 

In the Public Defender's Office there are presently 58 
lawyers and 56 clerical and support personnel. Of the 58 
attorneys, 43 are members of the permanent staff, 13 are 
employed under the Comprehensive Employment Training Act 
(C.E.T.A.), and four attorneys are on temporary salaries in 
specifically designated mental health work. This month 
another seven attorneys will join the staff under Title II, 
Community Development Funds. 

Of the 56 clerical and support personnel, only 16 are 
permanent employees, 37 are C.E.T.A., and four are part-time 
under a Criminal Justice (L.E.A.A.) grant. 

The principal office of the Public Defender is located 
in the Hall of Justice. There is also an office at the 
Youth Guidance Center for the juvenile clients. 



9/ 

— Section 3.403, Charter; Section 27706, Government 

Code. 

—' Ingram v. Justice Court (1968) 69 C2d 832; In re 
Brindle (1979) 91 C3d 600; State Bar Ethics Opinion 177-42, 
Welfare and Institutions Code. 



- 3 - 






The staff work is divided into five units: 

(1) Municipal Court Felony 

(2) Superior Court Felony 

(3) Municipal Court Misdemeanor 

(4) Mental Health 

(5) Juvenile 

The clerical and investigative section serve each of 
these units. Each unit is supervised by a Head Trial Attorney 
who reports directly to the Chief Attorney, Peter G. Keane. 

II 
STAFF WORK 
In fiscal year 1978-79 the Public Defender handled 
21,738 cases. The breakdown by unit is: 

(1) Municipal Court Felony 3,127 

(2) Superior Court Felony 2,202 

(3) Municipal Court Misdemeanor 12,855 

(4) Mental Health 2,601 

(5) Juvenile 2,040 

Total 22,825 

Less cases handled in 
Municipal Court Felony 
Unit later handled in 
Superior Court Felony Unit 1,087 

Total 21,738 

A. Municipal Court Felony Unit 

When a defendant is charged with a felony, — he or she 
will be arraigned in Municipal Court. A date will be set 
for a preliminary hearing where the District Attorney must 



— A felony is an offense punishable by a state prison 



sentence. 



4 - 



present evidence indicating "probable cause," i.e., a 
strong suspicion that the defendant is guilty of the offense. 
The defense lawyer has the opportunity to cross-examine 
prosecution witnesses and (as is rarely done) to present 
defense witnesses. 

In the Public Defender's Office there are 12 lawyers in 
the Municipal Court Felony Unit. It is their responsibility 
to handle the felony case through the preliminary hearing. 
These lawyers also handle extradition cases in which fugitives 
from other states resist a demand for their return. The 
unit is supervised by Harvey E. Goldfine, a Head Trial 
Attorney. 

During fiscal year 1978-79, the Municipal Court Felony 
Unit handled 3,127 felony cases and 120 extradition matters. 
Of the 3,127 felony cases, 1,087 were held to answer, i.e., 
remanded to the Superior Court. 

B. Superior Court Felony Unit 

After a preliminary hearing, a defendant who has been 
held to answer will be arraigned in the Superior Court. At 
that time both a pretrial and trial date will be set. 

In the Public Defender's Office, a lawyer from the 
Superior Court Felony Unit will be assigned immediately 
after a preliminary hearing. That attorney will handle the 
case through its conclusion in the Superior Court. 

The Superior Court Felony Unit consists of 14 attorneys. 
Each of these attorneys is an experienced-criminal-trial 

- 5 - 



lawyer. The unit is supervised by V. Roy Lef court, a Head 
Trial Attorney. The unit is assisted by another Head Trial 
Attorney, Gordon H. Armstrong, who supervises the Master 
Calendar in Department 22 of the Superior Court. 

During fiscal year 1978-79, the Superior Court Felony 
Unit handled a total of 2,202 cases. These cases were 
disposed of as follows: 

Probation with county jail: 905 

Probation: 54 

State Prison: 402 

Dismissal: 347 

Misdemeanor Sentence: 52 

California Youth Authority: 29 

California Rehabilitation Center 

(3053 W&I Commitment): 78 

Mentally Disordered Sex Offender: 13 

Others: 322 

The Superior Court Unit tried 118 cases. Eighty-six of 
these cases resulted in conviction (73%) ; 18 cases resulted 
in acquittals (13%) ; nine cases resulted in convictions for 
lesser charges (8%); and eight cases resulted in mistrials 
due to hung juries (7%) . 

It is noteworthy that among the cases assigned to this 
unit were 51 homicides, 228 robberies, 13 kidnappings, and 
188 aggravated assault cases. 

C. Municipal Court Misdemeanor Unit 

The great bulk of the Public Defender's work is done in 

- 6 - 



the misdemeanor division of the Municipal Court. There, 
thousands of Public Defender clients are charged with offenses 
that are punishable by a county jail term or by a fine of 
less than a $1,000. 

In the Municipal Court Misdemeanor Unit, there are 14 
lawyers. These attorneys handle cases at all stages of the 
proceedings. After the arraignment, i.e., the first appear- 
ance, an attorney will be assigned to a client and handle 
that case through its conclusion. 

The unit is supervised by a Head Trial Attorney, Perker 
L. Meeks, Jr. and he is assisted by Gary L. Faldesy, a 
Principal Trial Attorney. 

During fiscal year 1978-79 this unit handled 12,855 
cases, of which 12,136 commenced during the fiscal year. Of 
the 12,136 new cases, 5,234 pleaded guilty (44.1%); 5,355 
were dismissed (45%); and 1,460 failed to appear (12%) and 
87 went to a jury trial (.7%). 

D. Mental Health Unit 

The Public Defender is the principal attorney for the 
mentally ill. The Public Defender represents individuals 
for whom a conservatorship petition has been filed. The 
conservatorship petition is the legal means of establishing 
judicial control over a person in the event that person is 
unable to care for himself. If the conservatorship petition 
is granted, an individual may be placed in a state hospital 
or in a local facility, as the court deems appropriate. 

- 7 - 



In conservatorship cases the Public Defender is auto- 
matically appointed to represent the proposed conservatee. 
The lawyer must review medical reports, interview witnesses, 
and contest the proceedings if the client so desires. 
Should the client be sent to a state hospital, the Public 
Defender must stay in contact with the client in order to 
determine whether further hospitalization is appropriate. 

In addition to this, the Public Defender represents the 
developmentally-disabled in Probate Court in guardianship or 
conservatorship proceedings when the basis for the action is 
mental incompetence. 

The Mental Health Unit represents mentally-ill clients 
in criminal cases who have been sent to a state hospital. 
These are clients who have been found incompetent to stand 
trial (pursuant to Section 1368 P.C.), found not guilty by 
reason of insanity (pursuant to Section 1027 P.C.), or 
adjudged mentally disordered sex offenders (pursuant to 
Section 6300 W&I) . The clients are entitled to periodic 
review of their placement. 

The Mental Health Unit is supervised by Estella W. 
Dooley, a Head Trial Attorney and a nationally-recognized 
expert on mental-health law. Mrs. Dooley is assisted by 
four attorneys and by one investigator. 

In fiscal year 1978-79, this unit handled 2,601 cases. 
Of these cases, 2,328 cases were civil, i.e., related to 
conservatorships or guardianships; and 273 cases involved 
criminal defendants. 

- 8 - 



E. Juvenile Court Unit 

The Public Defender's Office represents juvenile clients 
in the Juvenile Court at the Youth Guidance Center. Most of 
the Public Defender clients are charged with committing an 
act which, if he or she were adult, would be a crime. In 
these proceedings the District Attorney files a wardship 
petition pursuant to Section 602 W&I. The case is later 
heard before a referee or by a Superior Court judge. In 
certain cases the District Attorney will attempt to exclude 

the juvenile from the juvenile court process and have the 

12/ 
juvenile prosecuted in an adult court. — If that action is 

taken, the juvenile is entitled to a hearing on the issue of 

his or her amenability to juvenile court treatment. 

At all times, the Public Defender must be a forceful 

and zealous advocate for the child. These are adversary 

proceedings, and the attorney must pursue factual and legal 

defenses on behalf of the client. But the Public Defender 

must also be sensitive to the problems confronting the 

juvenile. The attorney must be able to identify the emotional 

and educational difficulties and explore alternatives outside 

of the legal system, whether they be in the public schools, 

in community-based agencies, or in individual social or 

psychiatric assistance. 



12/ 

— See Section 707, Welfare and Institutions Code. 



- 9 - 



A smaller number of cases involve juveniles alleged to 
have behavior problems. These juveniles are not charged 
with committing any acts which would be criminal in the 
adult courts. They are typically children who are truant at 
school or who are beyond parental discipline. These are the 
"status" offenders, and petitions pursuant to Section 601 
W&I are filed in their cases. If these petitions are granted, 
a child may be taken out of parental custody. 

The Public Defender also represents parents in Juvenile 
Court where the Department of Social Services seeks to 
suspend or to terminate custody over such parents' children. 

The Juvenile Unit is supervised by Gregory Bonfilio. 
He is assisted by five lawyers, an investigator, and a 
social worker (a part-time employee) . During fiscal year 
1978-79 the unit handled 2,705 petitions, including 2,119 
"602" petitions, 127 "601" petitions, 225 parental right 
cases, and the balance being miscellaneous matters. 

F. Investigation 

The Investigative Section of the Public Defender's 
Office currently has five civil service investigators, 
including a Chief Investigator, Harry Guyton. This section 
conducts investigation in cases as requested by deputy 
public defenders. During fiscal year 1978-79 the Investigative 
Section acted on requests in felony, misdemeanor, mental 
health, and juvenile cases. The Investigative Section acted 

- 10 - 



on 1,903 requests. This included 362 felony cases, 1,167 
misdemeanor cases, and 374 juvenile cases. 

IV 
BUDGET 

The Public Defender Budget for fiscal year 1979 is 
$2,256,148. In fiscal year 1978 it was $2,201,463. The 
difference reflects salary standardization. The largest 
category of expenditure in the budget is for Regular Miscel- 
laneous Salaries (001): $1,630,260. A smaller amount is 
for Temporary Salaries (0200): $88,600. 

The Public Defender's Budget does not include salaries 
paid to C.E.T.A. employees. This amounts to $528,892. In 
the cost breakdown below, we have stated the costs in 
compensation of various operations of the Public Defender's 
Office. We have used 1979-80 pay rates: 

1. Attorneys 

(a) Administration (2) 

Public Defender and Chief Attorney $97,459 

(b) Superior Court Felony 

Public Defender Budget $514,796 

C.E.T.A. 13,500 



$528,296 



(c) Municipal Court Felony 



Public Defender Budget $274,586 

C.E.T.A. 32,500 

$307,086 



(d) Municipal Misdemeanor $230,672 

C.E.T.A. 118,170 



11 - 



(e) Mental Health 

Public Defender Budget $131,144 

C.E.T.A. 

$131,144 

(f) Juvenile 

Public Defender Budget $201,136 

C.E.T.A. 13,500 

$214,636 



2. Investigation 

Public Defender Budget $ 99,294 

C.E.T.A. 89,856 

$189,150 

3. Clerical and Support 

Public Defender Budget . $128,492 

C.E.T.A. 262,106 

L.E.A.A. 73,739 

$464,337 



The figures do not reflect the Community Development 
Funds under Title II which the Public Defender's Office will 
begin using this month. $162,076 will be available for 
seven additional attorneys. It is probable that at least 
five of those seven lawyers will be working in the Municipal 
Court Misdemeanor Unit. 

V 
GOALS FOR THE FUTURE 
This Annual Report has discussed the work of the 
Public Defender in the last fiscal year. What follows is a 
look at the future. 

Next year will be the most critical time in the 
68-year existence of the San Francisco Public Defender's. 

- 12 - 






The office must struggle to retain its scarce resources 
which have already been drastically cut by Proposition 13. 
Innovations must be adopted and new methods found to increase 
efficiency and improve work quality. 

A. Improve Quality of Representation 

The quality of representation provided to clients of 
the Public Defender's Office must improve substantially. 
Every client must receive a competent and an effective 
defense. 

It is a harsh fact that lawyers generally are poor 
administrators. However, no supervisor in the Public 
Defender's Office will remain in his position unless he can 
function as an efficient manager. The managers of this 
office will closely supervise the work of the lawyers in 
their units. These supervisors will learn to utilize 
statistical data. The supervisors shall measure performance, 
and they shall advise the attorneys they supervise of how 
well or how poorly they are performing. 

There are too many convictions presently occurring of 
those clients handled by the San Francisco Public Defender's 
Office. Too many clients are going to state prison when 
they should be receiving acquittals in jury trials or 
suspended sentences on pleas of guilty. 

The lawyers of this office are going to try more cases. 
There will be a substantial decrease in guilty pleas where 
state prison sentences are the result. 

- 13 - 



B. Affirmative Action 

The staff of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office 
must reflect the ethnic and the sexual composition of the 
city. In the preceding year, a number of minority, women, 
and gay attorneys have joined the office. Nevertheless, the 
composition of the professional staff remains behind the 
city's social and ethnic makeup. This will change. Within 
a short time, the Office of the Public Defender will be a 
microcosm of the makeup of the community of San Francisco. 

C. Increase Language Service 

In order to make Public Defender service available to a 
greater part of the community, the office must increase its 
language services. The office must search out lawyers and 
other personnel who are fluent in Spanish, Tagalog, and 
Chinese. Efforts must also be undertaken that will permit 
deaf persons to communicate with the staff. 

D. Stabilize Permanent Staff 

Approximately, one-half of the Public Defender's staff 
is employed under the C.E.T.A. Program. Many of the C.E.T.A, 
employees occupy critical positions, e.g., the telephone 
operator. The C.E.T.A. employees, both attorneys and non- 
attorneys, alike, are paid much less than their counterparts 
performing similar work. This pay disparity results in 
morale problems, as well as in high turnovers. This un- 
certainty affects the quality of work. The budget submitted 

- 14 - 



next year will call for an increase in permanent positions. 
The Public Defender will vigorously lobby for these positions. 

E. Enlarge and Improve Work Facilities 

The Public Defender's offices at the Hall of Justice 
were designed in 1959 for a staff of twenty. Today the 
number of employees is over a hundred people. Lawyers work 
without desks. They cannot confer in private with clients. 
The overcrowding creates an intolerable noise level. Adequate 
space must be made available. 

F. Written Policies 

Within sixty days, the first written manual of policies 
and procedures will be established. This will state minimum 
standards for legal representation and for the investigation 
of cases, and it will clearly tell the support staff what is 
expected of them. It will provide a bill of rights for 
employees, so that grievances can be fairly resolved. 

G. Community Outreach 

The Public Defender must go to the community and must 
inform the people what services are available to them. 
Moreover, the Public Defender must listen to the desires and 
the suggestions of all. The Public Defender has the respon- 
sibility of being the champion of civil liberties at times 
when irresponsible politicians play on citizens' fear of 
crime. 

- 15 - 



H. Community Advisory Committee 

There must be a conduit through which community attitudes 
are brought to the Public Defender's attention. A Community 
Advisory Committee will be established consisting of people 
of diverse backgrounds. This group will bring the thoughts 
and ideas of the neighborhoods to the Hall of Justice. 

I. Reduce Caseload 

The Public Defender serves over 20,000 clients every 
year. It has been estimated that 63% of all felony defendants 

and 80% of all misdemeanor defendants are represented by 

13/ 
this office. — The office does not desire to monopolize the 

practice of criminal law. There is a need for the presence 
of private lawyers in our criminal courts . They provide a 
diversity of style and ideas that enhance our justice system. 

In the next year a concerted effort will be made to 
refer more defendants to the private bar. Already, the San 
Francisco Bar Association is working with this office and 
with the Municipal Court to develop careful, eligibility- 
screening procedures and to establish a low-fee panel of 
private lawyers for criminal defendants. Once these mechanisms 
are developed, a greater number of defendants will find 
lawyers of their choice. This will ease the strain on both 
the Public Defender and on the taxpayers. 
DATED: September 17, 1979. 




JlSU>\ 



JEFF BRC 

Public Defender 



13/ 

— B. Hoffman, Study for Courts Alternative Project 

(1978) . 

- 16 - 



. 



; 



Annual Report 

of the 

PUBLIC DEFENDER 



C 




Jeff Brown 

PUBLIC DEFENDER 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

1981 

N FRANCISCO 
IC LIBRARY 

November 15, 1980 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

HALL OF JUSTICE 
ROOM 205. 850 BRYAN! STRF.F.T 
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94103 

(•415) 553-1671 PETER G. KEANE 

January 23, 19 81 Chief Attorney 



The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Mayor 

City and County of San Francisco 

City Hall Room 200 

San Francisco, California 94102 

Dear Madam Mayor: 

I am submitting to you the Annual Report of the 
Office of the Public Defender for fiscal year 1979-80 
as required by the Charter of the City and County of 
San Francisco, Section 3.500(e) . A copy of this report 
is also being sent to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 
as is required by Section 27710 of the Government Code. 

This Annual Report describes the activities and the 
expenditures relating to the Public Defender's Office and 
presents specific statistical data. But it does, I believe, 
says something else: it states the challenge facing the 
staff - the challenge of making justice a reality in the 
city. It was with this in mind that I have written a 
critical history into this traditionally dull and perfunctory 
document and said also something about the struggles of the 
attorneys and legal workers who overcome a history of poor 
performance and reputation. I hope that in reading this 
document that you will recognize that you, Mayor Feinstein, 
have an historic opportunity: that through your budgetary 
authority it is you that will give the lawyers and the legal 
workers the tools to do the job, and at long last, bring 
justice to the Hall of Justice. 

Sincerely yours , 




vn 

lie Defender 



JB:IH 
Enc . 



ANNUAL REPORT TO THE MAYOR 
FROM THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 
FISCAL YEAR 1980-1981 

Table of Contents 

Page 

I . INTRODUCTION 1 

II. PUBLIC DEFENDERS, PAST AND PRESENT 2 

III. JURISDICTION 8 

IV. CLIENT ELIGIBILITY 9 

V. STAFF 10 

VI. BUDGET 13 

VII. WORK OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 14 

1. Municipal Court Felony Unit 15 

2. Superior Court Felony Unit 18 

3. Municipal Court Misdemeanor Unit 21 

4. Research Unit 26 

5. Juvenile Unit 27 

6. Mental Health Unit 29 

7. Investigation 31 

VIII. MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST 

1. Affirmative Action 31 

2. Client Satisfaction Measurement 32 

3. Increased Computerization 33 



Page 



4. Law Student Program 34 

5. Participation of Volunteer Attorneys 

and State Public Defender 35 

6. Involvement in Public Issues 36 

7. Early Representation of Clients 38 

8. Telephones 39 



n 



I. INTRODUCTION 

We will make the Office of the Public Defender of the 
City and County of San Francisco the best public law firm 
in the United States. We have our work cut out for us, but 
we will be successful. 

What the achievement of this goal will mean is that the 
San Francisco Public Defender's Office will be aggressive and 
tenacious in representing every client's interest and in pro- 
tecting every client's rights. Attorneys will exhaust every 
legal remedy for every client. Every case will be thoroughly 
investigated. Every attorney who appears in court will be a 
forceful and persuasive advocate. Every client will be treated 
in a humane and an understanding fashion. 

The essential philosophy of public defense is that there 
must be equal justice for the indigent accused. No person 
should have the stigma nor the penalty of a criminal conviction 
unless there has been a vigorous and competent defense of that 
person by an able attorney. 

The City of San Francisco must set the highest example. 
Our community has historically been a model of liberal and of 
humane values. San Francisco has always been noted for its 
sense of decency, for its respect for individual freedom and 
for its sympathy for the unfortunate. We live in a "City Upon 
a Hill," as John Winthrop would have described our community 
and therefore we have a special obligation to insure that our 
City is a moral leader among the cities of the nation and of 
the world. 



In this 59th Annual Report of the Office of the Public 
Defender, we will, of course, present statistics, cost analysis 
and program descriptions. However we hope to do more with this 
report. We want to ■ show where the office is going and what it 
will do to get there. To do this it would be helpful to first 
look at the past. . 

II. PUBLIC DEFENDERS, PAST AND PRESENT 

The Office of the Public Defender of the City and County 
of San Francisco was a pioneering effort in the representation 
of poor people in criminal cases. It was established on October 
15, 1921 by ordinance pursuant to a state law permitting the 
establishment of such offices. In doing this, the Board of 
Supervisors was ahead of the Supreme Court of the United States 
by 11 years. The High Court did not rule, until 1932 in Powell 
v. Alabama — that a defendant in a capital case had the right to 

counsel. Even more impressive, San Francisco was 42 years ahead 

2/ 
of the 1963 decision of Gideon v. Wainwright — which held that an 

indigent defendant was entitled to counsel in all felony cases. 

Shortly after its organization the Public Defender's Office 

was operating in full swing. By 1925, the Office had a staff of 

3/ 
four lawyers who handled 1,502 cases. — There was no other compa- 
rable office in California or anywhere else in the country. How- 
ever, this impressive start was brought up short by a dramatic 
personal tragedy. Frank J. Egan, the City's first Public Defen- 
der, was convicted of murder. He was sent to prison and removed 

from office by the Board of Supervisors. 

1/ 287 U.S. 45 (1932) 

2/ 372 U.S. 335 (1963) 

3/ Annual Report of Public Defender (1925) 



- 2 - 



When the Public Defender's Office was initially established 
it was made an elective office. At that time most City depart- 
ments were elected (e.g., Coroner, Public Administrator, Tax 
Collector, County Clerk, etc.). In 1932 the freeholders who wrote 
a new charter made most of these departments appointive. Through 
inattention, freeholders left the Public Defender's Office an elec- 
ted position. As a consequence, it remains today one of the few 
elected Public Defender's Offices in the United States. — 

Egan's successor, Gerald R. Kenny, did little to improve the 
image of the office. History shows Kenny to have been, at best, a 
rather lackluster bureaucrat whose primary emphasis was the reduc- 
tion of his own staff. In 1933 Kenny proudly boasted to the Grand 
Jury that he had cut the number of lawyers in his office from four 
to two. Kenny's pride in the decimation of the office seems especi- 
ally bizarre since the workload had risen to a massive 1,100 felony 
cases in the Superior Court. In 1954 Kenny died of acute alcoholism. — 

In 1954 Edward Mancuso was appointed Public Defender by then 
Mayor Elmer E. Robinson. Mancuso was subsequently elected by the 
voters two years later. Mancuso 's contribution to public defense 
was significant. In February of 1955 he began representing defen- 
dants in misdemeanor cases; this was 19 years ahead of the United 
States Supreme Court which, in 1974, made misdemeanor representation 
mandatory in Argersinger v. Hamlin . Mancuso set up an investigation 
section and established a law library for the office. More impor- 
tant, Mancuso cleaned up the office. He got rid of alcoholics and 
4/ Kessling's Commentary on San Francisco Charter of 1931 (1932) . 

5/ Kenny did manage to appoint two of the ablest Deputy Public 
Defenders in the Office's history: Abe Dresow and William 
Ferdon. 

- 3 - 



political hacks. He required the staff to follow regular work 
hours. Between 1954 and Mancuso's retirement in 1974, the Public 
Defender's Office staff had grown from 7 to 33. 

Despite the radical transformation of the office under Mancuso, 
in the last years of his tenure the professional reputation of the 
office, in the legal community, declined. The attorneys in the of- 
fice were considered "cop-out" artists who wanted only to plead cli- 
ents guilty. There were few lawyers in the office who were consi- 
dered good, vigorous trial attorneys. The Public Defender was seen 
by the public and by the legal community as being insensitive to the 
clients of the office. 

The San Francisco Committee On Crime, after an exhaustive survey 

of the office observed that: 

"There is deep-seated antagonism toward the San 
Francisco Public Defender's Office among minority 
groups, particularly in the Black communities of 
Hunter's Point and the Western Addition, and par- 
ticularly among persons 23 years of age and younger. 
Many clients represented by the Public Defender's 
Office hold the Office personally responsible for 
the treatment the City gives them and which they 
resent." 5/ 

In 1975 Robert Nicco was appointed as San Francisco's fourth 
Public Defender. That same year, Nicco signed a Memorandum of Agree- 
ment with the San Francisco Bar Association. The Agreement's Preamble 
stated: 

"The Bar Association of San Francisco, Robert Nicco, 
and members of his office have long been jointly con- 
cerned over the continued understaf f ing and under- 
budgeting of this office. This deplorable situation 
has caused Nicco and attorneys in his office to be 
unable to provide the full measure of representation 

5/ A Report On The San Francisco Public Defender's Office by the 
San Francisco Committee On Crime (1970) page 4. 



- 4 - 



of indigent defendants by American Bar Association 
standards. In an effort to remedy this problem of 
inadequate and unconstitutional representation this 
agreement is entered. ..." 

The memorandum established standards for the Public Defender: 

"Persons who had been arrested must be interviewed 
at the earliest possible time. Every case must be 
thoroughly investigated before a plea of guilty can 
be entered. Client files must be systematically 
maintained. Attorneys must only handle realistic 
caseload levels." 6/ 

The Bar Association supported Nicco when he withdrew Deputy Public 
Defenders from the staffing of San Francisco Municipal Courts because 
of unacceptably high caseloads. Nicco 's action was successful. As a 
result the Board of Supervisors appropriated the necessary funds for 
12 additional positions which increased the staff to 45 laywers . 

Nicco' s administration was marked by a demonstrable improvement 
in the performance and in the reputation of the office. In addition 
to the increase in lawyers, more secretaries and investigators were 
obtained which dramatically increased the capacity of the lawyers to 
develop creative legal motions and writs. Nicco instituted an aggres- 
sive affirmative action program. He recruited talented minority law- 
yers from law schools and from the private Bar. 

Nicco expanded the Public Defender's role in representation of 
people in mental health commitment proceedings to a level unequaled 
in the State of California. The overall representation of defendants 
became more diligent, more thorough, more concerned and more protec- 
tive of clients' essential human dignity as well as of their legal 
rights. Nicco 's final effort was an attempt to secure adequate office 

6/ Memorandum of Agreement between Robert Nicco and The Bar 
Association Of San Francisco (1975) page 1. 



- 5 - 



;.- 



E 



:: 



■ 



space for his staff which was jammed into over-crowded facilities at 

the Hall of Justice. This effort failed, a victim of Proposition 13 

cutbacks on municipal funds. 

Despite Nicco ' s accomplishments, when Jeff Brown succeeded him 

in 1979, a number of problems still plagued the office. John W. Keker , 

Chairman of Brown's Transition Committee wrote: 

"The office you are taking over is in a weak condi- 
tion, enjoys a poor reputation, because of past fail- 
ures in leadership, low morale, and too few resources. 
The Public Defender's Office has become used to making 
do with too little. The result is an office without 
policies to ensure adequate representation of defen- 
dants in criminal cases.... At present, many clients 
feel they are second-class citizens, with second-class 
lawyers. It is hard for them to feel otherwise while 
represented by Public Defenders who have too many cases, 
lack access to telephones, have no private place to dis- 
cuss cases with their clients, have inadequate investi- 
gative support, have no formal training, have too sparce 
a library, and so on through a host of other problems." 7/ 

The Office of the Public Defender of the City and County of San 

Francisco has a staff of serious and dedicated people. In the last 

two years the Office has made its first priority to be the improvement 

of the quality of representation of clients. As a result there have 

been fewer pleas of guilty, more trials, better investigation, more 

appellate activity, stiffer resistance to judicial pressure, and more 

aggressive attitudes on the part of the attorneys in the advocacy of 

their clients' cases. In addition, the Office has implemented tighter 

supervision and developed more sophisticated management techniques. 

More talented and dedicated criminal trial lawyers have been hired and 

these lawyers have been promoted on the basis of their performance in 

the courtroom. 

7/ Letter of John W. Keker to Jeff Brown dated January 7, 1979. 



- 6 - 



We have done much in two years. An ABT Associates report in 

"The San Francisco Public Defender's Office, A Preliminary Assessment," 

concluded: 

"The San Francisco Public Defender's Office has made 
substantial progress in dealing with the plethora of 
problems facing the incumbent Public Defender upon 
his election to office in 1978. Furthermore, Geoffrey 
Brown has a realistic understanding of the needs of 
the office and the constraints imposed on him in meet- 
ing those needs. He is dedicated to the purpose of 
his office -- to provide quality representation to the 
indigent defendants -- and is making progress in re- 
forming the office in a manner necessary to achieve 
that purpose." 8/ 

There is, however, much to do. The Public Defender's Office lacks 
sufficient support and investigative staff: There are five permanent 
and one CETA investigator for 70 lawyers. There is a need for an im- 
proved and for a different work environment. One hundred and three em- 
ployees work within 5,500 square feet at the Hall of Justice. The law- 
yers do not have any privacy to speak with clients. The lawyers have 
no peace and quiet anywhere to do their work. The physical state of 

the office is one of a dingy squalor that insults the self-esteem of 

9/ 
both clients and employees. These conditions must change. — 

In the representation of clients, the office has a number of clear 
priorities. The first priority is to increase the early representation 
of clients. The clients must be put in contact with their lawyers im- 
mediately after arrest and before appearing in court: This period is 

8/ The San Francisco Public Defender's Office, a Preliminary 
Assessment by Robert Rosenblum and Vicki Garvin, ABT Asso- 
ciates (August 5, 1980). 

9/ There is a serious question whether this condition complies 
with Section 27708 of the Government Code: "In each office 
the boards of supervisors shall provide suitable rooms for 
the use of public defender and office furniture and supplies 
with which to properly conduct the business of his office...." 
(Emphasis added.) 

- 7 - 



. 



s 






the most critical time in a defendant's case. There must be continual 
re-training of lawyers in order that those lawyers are constantly de- 
veloping professionally in their expertise, their legal knowledge, and 
in their courtroom skills. 

At present the Office is most fortunate. The Public Defender now 
employs the most talented criminal attorneys in the City. This is 
unique in the history of the office. This has resulted from a conscious 
and deliberate effort to hire only attorneys who are tough, dedicated 
advocates with outstanding forensic qualities and who are accomplished 
scholars in criminal law. 

The above introduction has given an overview of the Public Defen- 
der's Office. The following pages recount the specific areas of acti- 
vity of the office. 

III. JURISDICTION 

The Office of the Public Defender of the City and County of San 
Francisco is a creation of the City's Charter. — The Charter provides 
that the Public Defender will represent persons who have been charged 
with criminal offenses and who are without funds to pay for a privately 
retained lawyer. 

In addition to this specific grant of power by the Charter, the 
California Government Code also authorizes counties such as San Francisco 
to establish Public Defender Offices. The Government Code — sets forth 
the types of cases which can be handled by County Public Defenders. These 
include : 

10/ Section 3.403 -- City Charter. 

11 / Section 27706 -- California Government Code 

- 8 - 



1. Criminal cases upon request or by appointment of 
the Court ; 

2. Contempt cases; 

3. Appeals; 

4. Actions for the collection of wages or other demands 
under one hundred dollars; 

5. Defense of individuals in civil litigation where a 
person is being harassed or persecuted; 

6. Cases involving mental health guardianships and con- 
servatorships ; 

7. Juvenile cases. The Welfare and Institutions Code 
provides that public defender offices or appointed 
counsel shall be furnished to parents in cases where 
custody of children is being taken away. 

There is thus a wide spectrum of activities in which a Public 
Defender's Office engages. Although the majority of the work of the 
Office is in criminal defense, the responsibilities of representing 
people in mental health and in juvenile cases require highly trained 
attorneys and investigators. 

IV. CLIENT ELIGIBILITY 

Clients of the Public Defender's Office must be financially un- 
able to hire a private attorney. In most cases the attorney makes a 
determination of financial eligibility after an initial interview with 

an accused. If the person is eligible, the Public Defender represents 

12/ 
that person through the end of the case. — However, if the attorney 

feels the client is not eligible, then the applicant is referred to 

the Court. The Court can, on its own, appoint the Public Defender 

or the Court can appoint counsel from the private bar at the Court's 

12 / The eligibility standards for immediate acceptance by the Public 
Defender are: Misdemeanors : $500 income and costs not exceeding 
$500. Feloniesl (a~) Preliminary Hearings; $500 net income and 
assets not exceeding $700; (b) Trials : $700 in net income and 
assets not exceeding $1,000. 



- 9 - 



expense or the Court can tell the person to hire a private attorney. 

V. STAFF 

The Office of the Public Defender has a staff of 103 persons. 
Sixty-six of these persons occupy regular Civil Service positions, 
and 37 hold temporary positions. 

Permanent positions are those funded through local taxation and 
approved by the City on a long-term basis. Except in the case of 
attorney positions, permanent jobs are filled by employees who have 
passed a Civil Service examination, or who are in the process of tak- 
ing the examination. 

Temporary positions are those funded from special monies, usually 
from the federal government in the form of grants from the Comprehen- 
sive Employment Training Act (CETA) , or Community Development money, 
and from the State of California. Temporary positions are also funded 
through local money on a short-term basis. Temporary employees do 
not have to take an exam, and they do not receive health and retire- 
ment benefits. 

Of the 37 temporary positions in the Public Defender's Office, 
15 are CETA. This is in sharp contrast to a year ago when there were 
50 CETA employees. The remainder of the temporary employees consist 
of: (1) 3 persons -- a psychologist and 2 social workers -- under an 
AB-90 grant at Juvenile Court; (2) 19 lawyers, 16 funded from Commu- 
nity Development (Title II) money, 3 from local funds, which are sub- 
verted in part by the State of California under SB-90. 

Over one-half -- or 64 persons -- are attorneys, 45 of whom 
hold permanent positions. To serve these 64 lawyers, are only six 



- 10 - 



13/ 
Investigators. — Five of the Investigators have permanent Civil 

Service positions. 

The Public Defender has a Confidential Secretary who also serves 
as an Executive Assistant and functions as Office Manager. The bal- 
ance of the work force is: 

1. Clerk-typists (1424, 1426): 5 

2. Steno-Transcribers (1430, 1432, 1444, 1458): 6 

3. Telephone Operator (1706, CETA-1402) : 2 

4. Account Clerk (1630): 1 

5. Psychologist, Social Worker (2574, 2912): 3 

6. Paralegal (8173, CETA-1402): 5 

7. Legal Process Clerks (CETA-1402; CETA 8106): 8 

8. Mental Health Investigators (CETA-1402): 2 - 1 

These dull and lifeless figures demonstrate: (1) There is an acute 
lack of support staff for the attorneys; (2) The office staff is not 
stable because a large number of employees' positions are dependent 
on continued federal money under CETA and Title II. 

Every large law office must have a sufficient back-up force of 
secretaries, clerks, investigators and telephone operators. In most 
government offices, such as, for example, in the California Attorney 
General's Office, there is a set ratio of attorneys to secretaries and 
to investigators. In that office, whenever the size of the attorney 

13 / The District Attorney's Office has a staff of 30 criminal investi- 
gators, in addition to the assistance of the Bureau of Inspectors. 

14 / These figures are as of November 15, 1980. They compare unfavor- 
ably with the larger staff on duty on June 31, 1980. Then there 
were 114 employees, of which 73 held permanent civil service posi- 
tions, 42 temporary, including 32 CETA's. 



- 11 - 



staff grows, there is proportionate growth in the support staff. In 
most public law office operations, there is an economy of scale estab- 
lished which can make up for any shortage in the number of the sup- 
port staff by the use of central switchboards and typing pools. The 
Public Defender does not have these basic necessities. The absence 
of one stenographer in the Office's Word Processing Center creates an 
enormous backlog. The result is late filings of critical legal docu- 
ments in the Courts. The absence of our trained telephone operator 
puts our phone system in the hands of a considerably less qualified 
person and causes great confusion for clients, and for other members 
of the public who call into the office. 

Our few investigators must literally be cajoled, begged, and kid- 
napped away from assignments of enormous caseloads in order to fulfill 
the simplest requests of an attorney. 

The funding and the staffing of the Office is a patchwork of dif- 
ferent government grants. The Office has held the line without ad 
valorem monies being used. But federal money is drying up and our 
total staff is being steadily reduced. A year ago there were 118 em- 
ployees, now there are 103. This decline can be expected to continue. 
When this occurs the Office will have no other choice but to engage in 
a furious fiscal battle with the City administration to have ad valorem 
funds substituted in order to keep the office functioning. 

The Office initially accepted these governmental grants because, 
at the time, this was the only way to keep the Office funded. The City 
must recognize how fragile the fiscal existence of this Office is. 
Unless the budget for our activities is stabilized with ad valorem 
funds, the City faces an explosive confrontation within the Criminal 
Justice System in the near future. 



- 12 - 






VI . BUDGET 

The Public Defender ad valorem Budget for Fiscal Year 1980-1981 
is $2,880,084. In addition the Office receives $206,573 in Title II 
monies (for attorneys), $416,125 from CETA, and $52,751 from LEAA. 
Thus, the total expenditures for the Public Defender's Office during 
Fiscal Year 1980-1981 will be $3,555,533. 

The expenditures are as follows : 

Permanent Salaries: $2,003,129 

Temporary Salaries: 214,014 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits : 489 , 657 

Salary and Fringe Subtotal: $2, 708,217 

Contractual Services: 43,575 

Other Services: 36,405 

Current Expenses: 15,495 

Capital Outlay: 2,150 

Miscellaneous Services: 4,000 

Maintenance: 6,359 

Repairs: 350 

Data Processing: 62,363 

Reproduction: 535 

Non Salary Subtotal $ 73,607 

Ad Valorem Subtotal 2,880,084 

Title II Salaries: 206,573 

CETA Salaries: 416,125 

A.B. 90 Salaries: 52,751 

The expenditures of the Public Defender's Office were in the 
following activities. 15/ 

Administration: $ 193,372 
Superior and Municipal 

Court Felonies: 1,039,416 

Municipal Court Misdemeanor: 428,350 

Juvenile Court: 232,076 

Mental Health: 157,940 

Investigation : 120 , 354 

Clerical and Support Staff: 155,656 

Research: 67,990 

Unincumbered Salary Savings 413,063 

Total Salaries: $2,708,217 

15 / These figures are based solely on salaries, as was a comparable 
breakdown in the Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1978-1979. 



- 13 - 






VII. WORK OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 

The work of the Public Defender's Office is divided into eight 
Units: 

1. Municipal Court Felony 

2. Superior Court Felony 

3. Municipal Court Misdemeanor 

4. Mental Health 

5. Juvenile 

6. Research 

7. Investigation 

8. Clerical 

With the exception of the Investigation and of the Clerical Sec- 
tions, each Unit consists of a group of working attorneys under the 
supervision of a Head Attorney. All Unit Supervisors (Head Attorneys) 
are directly accountable to the Chief Attorney, Peter G. Keane. 

In Fiscal Year 1979-1980, the Public Defender handled 19,413 new 
cases. The breakdown by units is: — 

1. Municipal Court Felony: 3,749 

2. Superior Court Felony: 2,839 

3. Municipal Court Misdemeanor: 9,654 

4. Mental Health: 1,470 

5. Juvenile: 2,895 

20,607 

Less cases handled in Municipal 
Court Felony Unit later handled 
in Superior Court Felony Unit: 1 , 242 

Total: 19,365 

16/ We have not included the work of the Research Unit because it was 
established toward the end of Fiscal Year 1979-1980. The caseload 
of that Unit is reflected in cases handled in other units. 



- 14 - 



1. Municipal Court Felony Unit 

This group of lawyers represents clients charged with felonies 
up to and through the Preliminary Hearing in the case. 

If, at the Preliminary Hearing in the Municipal Court, the Court 
finds that there is enough evidence to hold the defendant to answer 
on the felony charge, then the defendant must later appear in the 
Superior Court for further proceedings and for the trial of the case. 

There are two methods of representation of clients in felony 
cases: "vertical" representation and "horizontal" representation. 
In vertical representation the same attorney represents each client 
from the beginning to the end of a case. In horizontal representation, 
one lawyer represents a client up to and through the Preliminary Hear- 
ing on the charge (the proceedings in Municipal Court) and a second 
lawyer then takes over the case and represents the client up to and 
through the trial of the case (the proceedings in Superior Court) . 

Vertical representation in all cases is the most desirable situa- 
tion. — It is not good for a client to have to change lawyers in the 
middle of the case. Horizontal representation is the cause of many of 
the difficulties of the attorney-client relationships between Public 
Defenders and their clients. The clients are understandably confused 
and embittered by being shuffled between two attorneys. In addition, 
the second attorney who must try the case is not as well prepared as 
he would be had he had the case from the beginning and had the oppor- 
tunity to see and question the witnesses at the Preliminary Hearing. 

In a large office vertical representation presents several pro- 

blems. First, it necessitates that all attorneys handling Preliminary 
17 / See Guidelines For Legal Defense Systems In The United States : 
Report Of The National Study Commission On Defense Services 
(Final Report: 1976), pages 462-470; Standard 5.11. 



- 15 - 



Hearings be qualified for felony trial work, despite the fact that 
felony trials require a far greater degree of experience than do 
Preliminary Hearings. Thus in a vertical system, an office does 
not make use of competent attorneys, of limited experience, who can 
do Preliminary Hearings. Experienced attorneys spend valuable time 
in uncomplicated hearings -or in cases that are not likely to reach 
the Superior Court. 

Secondly, vertical representation requires a relatively large 
number of attorneys who are experienced enough to try Superior Court 
cases as well as Preliminary Hearings. Superior Court work, especially 
Superior Court trial work, is emotionally and physically exhausting. 
It demands of the attorney the highest level of professional perfor- 
mance all of the time. It is for that reason that in Public Defender 
Offices, the turn-over of experienced trial lawyers is constant. And 
this turn-over makes it unlikely that the several thousand Preliminary 
Hearing cases can all be assigned to attorneys who meet Superior Court 
experience requirements. 

Finally, vertical representation prevents calendaring difficul- 
ties for attorneys. It is difficult for any attorney to set the nu- 
merous Preliminary Hearing cases on dates other than those that the 
attorney is expected to be in the Superior Court. 

In the San Francisco Public Defender's Office we have attempted 
to strike a balance between the very compelling case for vertical 
representation against the practical advantages of a horizontal sys- 
tem. The Public Defender's Office uses a combination of vertical and 
horizontal representation. Approximately one-half of the felony cases 



- 16 - 



are handled by the same attorney in the Superior Court. All serious 
felony cases which carry substantial state prison exposure are handled 
on a system of vertical representation. 

There are presently four Municipal Court Preliminary Hearing 
Departments. The cases handled in Departments 9 and 12 are on a verti- 
cal basis and those in Departments 11 and 19 are handled horizontally. 

The Municipal Court Felony Unit also handles extradition cases. 
These are cases in which an accused is wanted in another state and 
has been arrested in San Francisco and faces formal legal proceedings 
by the foreign state for his return. 

All felony cases in the Municipal Court are supervised by Robert 
Berman, the Head Attorney who is the Municipal Court Felony Unit Super- 
visor. Mr. Berman is a highly skilled trial lawyer who, before becom- 
ing the Supervisor of this Unit, was the office specialist in the trial 
of complicated homicide and capital cases. He currently directs a 
staff of 14 attorneys. In Fiscal Year 1979-1980 this Unit handled a 
total of 3,749 felony cases. Of this number 1,242 cases went on to 
the Superior Court after a Municipal Court magistrate determined that 
there was reasonable and probable cause to hold the client to answer 
in a trial for a felony. Thirty-two of these cases were certified to 
the Superior Court after a plea of guilty to a felony charge in the 
Municipal Court. 119 of these felony cases were extradition matters. 
The remainder of cases were discharged or dismissed. 

The work of this Unit included 38 homicides, 280 robberies, 23 
rape, and 4 kidnapping cases. The greatest number of cases are burg- 
lary charges and following that, drug offenses. 



- 17 - 



2. Superior Court Felony Unit 

The work of the Superior Court Felony Unit is the most critical 
and the most important of the functions performed by the Public Defen- 
der ' s Office. The Superior Court attorney is literally, in some cases, 
responsible for a client's life Typically, the Superior Court attorney 
is fighting against a prosecution which seeks to lock a person up in 
a state prison for many years. 

The lawyer who represents an accused in a felony case today must 
be a specialist in this craft. Such an attorney must be able to analyze 
the facts, to decide on strategies of investigation and must know how 
to use facts, evidence, and witnesses. The lawyer must stay current in 
the rapid, mind-boggling changes in contemporaneous criminal case law. 
It is the policy of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office that 
every case shall be thoroughly prepared by the attorney. No plea of 
guilty by a client will ever be entered unless the attorney has fully 
analyzed and has rejected all possible defenses . 

Public Defenders for too long deservedly had the reputation of 
"cop-out artists." This Office has changed radically in the past two 
years and it no longer has such a reputation. This is due to the de- 
dication and the commitment of the attorneys who look upon the work 
which they do for their clients as that of a ministry and a sacred 
cause which they will not betray. 

Last year the Superior Court Unit handled a total of 2,839 cases. 
There were 107 jury trials. 82 of the jury trials resulted in guilty 
verdicts and in 25 cases there were acquittals. Of the 2,839 cases 
handled by the Unit this year, a total of 470 people were committed to 



- 18 - 



State Prison. 812 people were placed on probation. 31 people were 
given terms in the County Jail. In 72 cases the defendant was found 
mentally incompetent to stand trial. 8 people were diverted. 146 
people were committed to the California Rehabilitation Center. 38 
people were committed to the California Youth Authority. 35 people 
were remanded to the Municipal Court where the case was then treated 
as a misdemeanor. 147 people had their cases dismissed. The balance 
were continued to Fiscal Year 1980-1981 (582) , turned over to private 
counsel (77) , or placed off calendar as a bench warrant or otherwise 
(321). 

The Superior Court Unit handled a large number of complex and 
serious felony cases. The attorneys handled 40 homicide cases, 208 
robberies, 26 rape cases, 250 burglaries, and 7 kidnapping cases. 

In June of 1980 the Superior Court Felony Unit made a quantum 
leap towards the achievement of excellence in the representation of 
the indigent accused. This was through the appointment of Thomas E. 
Bruyneel as Head Attorney for the Felony Unit. Mr. Bruyneel is an out- 
standing trial lawyer in his own right. Many San Francisco attorneys 
consider Mr. Bruyneel to be the best criminal trial lawyer in the City 
As such, Tom Bruyneel has the respect of all of the City's lawyers 
and judges. His appointment as top line supervisor of the felony law- 
yers in the Office was a signal to the legal community that the Public 
Defender's Office will have only first-rate legal talent as managers. 

A lawyer of Mr. Bruyneel 's cliber leads by example. He has in- 
deed inspired the attorneys in his Unit and the results are easily 
measurable. There has been a dramatic improvement in the results ob- 
tained by the lawyers in the Felony Unit since Mr. Bruyneel 's appoint- 
ment. In the first five months of Fiscal Year 1980-1981 there has 
been a substantial reduction in State Prison sentences in comparison 



_1 9 - 



with the period preceding Mr. Bruyneel's appointment. Whereas in 
Fiscal Year 1979-1980, an average of 38 cases per month involved 
State Prison sentences, this number dropped under Mr. Bruyneel's 
leadership to 26 such cases per month. A decrease of more than 307o ! 

The vitality and the health of the American Criminal Justice 
System is dependent upon vigorous, hard- fought jury trials. Jury 
trials demonstrate whether a lawyer is prepared to assert and to 
champion the basic rights of a client. The way in which a lawyer 
handles a jury trial is the basic litmus test of whether that attor- 
ney has the confidence, the talent, the preparation, the knowledge 
and the forensic skill to persuade 12 peers of an accused that the 
prosecution is wrong. 

With plea bargaining, a client many times never does know whether 
he has made the correct decision in pleading guilty. However in a jury 
trial the ultimate test of the strength of the client's case is laid 
out for all to see. A jury trial allows a defendant to know and to see 
whether the prosecution, when put to its burden of proof, can convince 
fellow citizens that the evidence is sufficient and that the proof does 
indeed establish guilt. 

We project an increase of 207o in the number of jury trials this 
year over and above those in Fiscal Year 1979-1980. This is a primary 
performance objective and the latest statistics during Fiscal Year 1980' 
1981 indicate that this objective will be achieved. 

The attorneys are not only going to be trying more cases during 
Fiscal Year 1980-1981, but they will also be achieving better results. 
In fact, the conviction rate in felony trials during the first six 
months of Fiscal Year 1980-1981 has dropped to an all-time low of 587<>. 



- 20 - 



The fact that the Public Defender's Office is trying more cases 
and getting better results is very much to the credit of the leader- 
ship of Mr. Bruyneel. 
3 . Municipal Court Misdemeanor Unit 

The Misdemeanor Unit of the office is the most difficult and the 
most challenging to- administer and to supervise. The Head Attorney 
who supervises this Unit manages 17 lawyers. 

This is the Unit of the Office which is most visible to the pub- 
lic. Most citizens will never be charged with a felony. However a 
great number of citizens in any community will have brief encounters 
with the law. Petty thefts, minor narcotics violations, drunk driving, 
assaults, domestic violence -- no person in the community, either di- 
rectly one's self or through a friend or family member or colleague is 
not sometimes in difficulty over some such matter. 

As a result, this is where most members of the public are exposed 
to the Criminal Justice System. Such exposure can result in one's be- 
ing positively reinforced as a citizen in one's belief in the essential 
justice of our system or, if the experience is bad, it can leave one 
embittered and cynical about the lack of justice in our society. 

The most delicate aspect of this Unit is that it is composed of 
the newest attorneys and therefore the least experienced attorneys. 
In most instances these lawyers can make up in youthful dedication, 
energy, and in earnestness for a general lack of experience. However 
the Head Attorney managing this Unit must be the consumate administrator 
The Supervisor must be a combination teacher, counselor, and manager as 

well as being a fine trial attorney and criminal law scholar who can 
maintain the respect of his people. 



- 21 - 






A misdemeanor jury trial can be every bit as complex as a felony 
jury trial. For this reason these newer attorneys must be given con- 
stant training. They must be encouraged to attend professional semi- 
nars and programs on advocacy and legal writing. They must be in- 
stilled, early on in their work, with good work habits, proper methods 
of client interviewing, thorough legal research and effective motion 
writing. Most important of all, the lawyers must keep up on the new 
developments in criminal law. 

Since 1979 the primary points of emphasis for the Misdemeanor 
Unit has been: 

1 . Consistent representation of each client by the 
same attorney through the entire process of the 
case . This means that once an attorney is as- 
signed to a client, that lawyer represents that 
client through every stage of the case and at 
all proceedings. In the past, clients were shuf- 
fled between different attorneys right up to and 
including the very day of trial. As a result, 
attorneys were many times unprepared for hearings , 
clients were understandably upset and they felt 
that the Public Defender's Office had little or 
no concern for their cases. 

2 . Discouraging pleas of guilty at first appearance . 
At present a small number of misdemeanor cases re- 
sult in pleas of guilty at the first appearance of 
the person in court. The total number is less than 



- 22 - 












107o of the total cases handled. This figure is a 
dramatic contrast to the figure of 707 o of the mis- 
demeanor cases handled by this office that resulted 
in guilty pleas at the first appearance back in 1977 
and in the years before then. 

The past widespread pleas of guilty at the ar- 
raignment were indicative of an office where the at- 
torneys were too overworked, too undermotivated, too 
lazy, too cynical or a combination of all of these 

factors. The Public Defender previously served the 

18/ 
interests of the court calendar. — This has stopped. 

The lawyers in this Office know that their duty is the 
best interest of the client and not the speed of the 
court proceedings. 
3. Improved quality of misdemeanor work . Although a mis- 
demeanor case does not carry a possible State Prison 
sentence, a defendant's life is drastically affected 
by such a charge. The client is concerned and is 
frightened about going to the County Jail. The client 
wants and deserves to have his day in court. Justice 
and compassion for people require that a misdemeanor 
case be handled with the same care and the same thor- 



18 / A special committee of the San Francisco Bar Association in October, 
1974 made this observation in their report (at page 20): "However, 
the Public Defender does not act as a pure advocate for the defen- 
dant in the early stages of most misdemeanor cases. He serves the 
court system, and only in part, the defendant.... 

Thereafter, the Public Defender serves as a conduit carrying 
offers from the District Attorney to the defendants." 



- 23 - 






oughness as a felony. A case must be fully investi- 
gated. All witnesses must be interviewed. All de- 
fenses must be explored. 
4. Training and close supervision of attorneys . This is 
the most essential task for the manager of the lawyers 
in the misdemeanor section, since those attorneys are 
the younger, the less experienced attorneys. The 
Supervisor must counsel these lawyers on a one-to-one 
basis. The Supervisor must watch and evaluate them 
when they first appear in court and he must give them 
constructive criticism on how well they are perform- 
ing. In addition, the Supervisor must monitor the 
results which the lawyers are obtaining for their 
clients and must tell the lawyers whether or not those 
results are satisfactory. 
The office has established seminars, lectures, and special advocacy 
classes for the attorneys in the Office. Because the lawyers spend the 
bulk of their day in court, it has been impossible to have formal train- 
ing sessions during working hours. A training officer would, of course, 
be a great boon to the development of the talents of the attorneys. 
This year the office employed Professor Bernard Segal. Professor Segal 
worked with the attorneys in the Municipal Court on a one-to-one basis, 
watching their performances and critiquing them on their advocacy skills 
Professor Segal set up an intense three-day session on forensic skills 
which was held at the Hastings College of Advocacy. In addition, the 
office set up a series of lectures on specialized subjects and on new 
developments in the law. We plan on extending these types of activities 
in the future . 



- 24 - 



The Municipal Court Misdemeanor Unit is supervised by Head At- 
torney, Gary Faldesy, a seasoned criminal trial lawyer. Mr. Faldesy 
is one of the most skilled managers in public defense work. He has 
shown an especial practical understanding of younger attorneys. He 
has the temperment of a teacher as well as the talent of a first-rate 
administrator. The lawyers who work for him admire and respect him. 

The Misdemeanor Unit handled a total of 8,395 new cases in Fiscal 
Year 1979-1980 as well as having carried over 341 cases from Fiscal 
Year 1978-1979. The attorneys in this Unit tried 85 jury trials. 
30 trials resulted in not guilty verdicts, 18 resulted in hung juries 
and four resulted in guilty verdicts. 

A portion of the Municipal Court work takes place in the Law and 
Motion Department, Department 18. This activity consists of Motions 
to Suppress Evidence which have been taken in unconstitutional searches, 
Motions to Disclose the Identity of Informants, Motions to Revoke Pro- 
bation, and Motions to Discover Disciplinary Records of Arresting Of- 
ficers who have brutalized clients. 

A breakdown of these motions and of their results is as follows: 
Motion To Suppress Evidence (Per Section 1538.5 P.C.): 304 
Granted: 117 
Denied: 187 
Motions For Informant Identities, To Secure Personnel Files: 
105: 

Granted: 34 
Denied: 81 
Motions To Revoke: 1259 
Denied: 523 
Terminated: 55 






- 25 - 






Reinstated: 


69 


Modified : 


168 


Revoked: 


193 


Bench Warrant 




Issued: 


251 



4. Research Unit 

The newest component of the Public Defender's Office is the Re- 
search Unit. In the early months of 1980, Kathy Tanaka-Asada , a newly 
admitted attorney, began to collect briefs and to get together research 
material, and to organize a paralegal staff. This group began to pro- 
vide back-up assistance to the trial attorneys by providing them with 
research and by the writing of motions, writs, and appeals. Ms. Tanaka- 
Asada 1 s efforts resulted in the establishment of a long-needed Research 
Unit. Such a Unit's establishment was something that had eluded numerous 
efforts on the part of the office for years. Ms. Tanaka-Asada subsequ- 
ently moved up into trial work and the supervision of the Unit was assu- 
med by Grace Suarez, a veteran felony trial attorney and an accomplished 
legal scholar. 

The Research Unit consists of two paralegals who carry out the legal 
research. A third paralegal does expungements, i.e., the sealings of 
criminal records and obtaining of pardons. 

The work of the Research Unit consists of (1) appeals and writ 
writing, (2) research for law and motion work in cases set for trial, 
and (3) technical assistance to the attorneys in the production and 
the filing of pleadings. 

The Unit presently has a small library. It has an indexed brief 
bank, a collection of jury research material, and a micro-fiche file 



- 26 - 



which contains the briefs of the State Public Defender. In the next 
few months the Research Unit will obtain a LEXIS Computer terminal, a 
machine which produces legal citations upon inquiry. 

This Unit will be expanded in future years. It is an indispens- 
able component for the delivery of high quality legal service by a 
public law office. 
5. Juvenile Unit 

The Public Defender's Office represents juvenile clients in the 
Juvenile Court at the Youth Guidance Center. Most of the Public Defen_ 
der juvenile clients are charged with having committed offenses which, 
if the juveniles were adults, would be a crime. In these proceedings 
the District Attorney files a Petition pursuant to Section 602 of the 
Welfare and Institutions Code. The case is later heard before a ref- 
eree or by a Superior Court Judge. 

The Public Defender also represents other juveniles who are alle- 
ged to have behavior problems. These juveniles are not charged with 
committing any acts which would be criminal in adult courts. Typically 
these are children who are charged with truancy, with curfew violations, 
or with being beyond parental control. These are "status" offenders. 
Petitions pursuant to Section 601 of the Welfare and Institutions Code 
are filed in these cases. If these Petitions are granted, the child is 
taken out of the control of his parents. 

In certain criminal type cases the District Attorney will attempt 
to exclude a juvenile from the juvenile court process and to have the 
juvenile prosecuted in an adult criminal court (pursuant to Section 
207 et seq. , Welfare and Institutions Code). 



- 27 - 



If that action is taken, the juvenile is entitled to a hearing on 
whether or not it is proper to have the juvenile tried as an adult. 

The Public Defender also represents parents in Juvenile Court 
where the Department of Social Services is attempting to suspend or to 
terminate the parent's custody over their children. 

The Public Defender is a forceful and a zealous advocate for the 
protection of the rights of the juvenile. Juvenile cases are adversary 
proceedings, and the attorney must use all of his talents in presenting 
the factual and the legal defenses on behalf of the juvenile client. At 
the same time, the Public Defender must also be sensitive to the special 
problems confronting a juvenile offender. Juvenile law has become an 
entire speciality in itself. Attorneys in the juvenile courts must be 
able to identify emotional and educational difficulties and to explore 
the alternatives which exist outside of the legal system. The lawyers 
must utilize fully all of the community-based agencies which provide 
social or psychiatric assistance. 

Present th e Public Defend coordinates its activities with sucn 
organizations as Real Alternatives, Youth for Service, and Rafiki Mosada 
These are groups which provide the special help needed by troubled mi- 
nors. To address the special needs of the juvenile, the Public Defender 
also employs a social worker and a psychologist. The result of these 
approaches, and, in addition, because of the assistance of professional 
social workers and psychologists, has been to reduce the number of com- 
mitments of juveniles to the Youth Authority. Commitments have dropped 
from 96 to 81 from Fiscal Year 1979-1980 to Fiscal Year 1980-1981. Dur- 
ing that period only 136 minors were sent to the local detention facil- 
ities at Log Cabin Ranch. 

- 28 - 






Overall, the Juvenile Unit handled 2,895 Petitions (or just over 
2,000 minors). The Petitions were for the following: 

601 W & I : 2,410 

602 W & I : 141 

707 W & I : 19 

3001 W & I : 325 
(parental neglect) 

6. Mental Health Unit 

The Public Defender is the principal attorney in the community for 
the mentally ill. The Mental Health Unit represents individuals when 
Conservatorship Petitions have been filed. A Conservatorship Petition 
is the legal means of establishing judicial control over a person who 
is alleged to be a danger to himself or to others (pursuant to Section 
5500 et seq. , Welfare and Institutions Code). 

If the Petition is granted, an individual may be placed in a state 
hospital or in a local facility, whichever the court deems appropriate. 

In conservatorship cases the Public Defender is appointed to repre- 
sent the proposed conservatee. The lawyers and the investigators review 
medical reports, interview witnesses, and explore the possibilities of 
alternative placement. If the client wants to contest the hearing, the 
Public Defender is the patient's advocate in an adversary proceeding to 
prevent hospital confinement. 

The Public Defender also represents mentally incompetent persons 
in probate proceedings. These are persons who would not be considered 
a danger to themselves or to others, but who do not have the capacities 
to fully care for themselves, people who have such handicaps as epilepsy, 
autism, mental retardation, or some other condition, and who are under 



- 29 - 



the age of 18. In probate proceedings these persons are the wards 
of the court and the Public Defender will represent them. 

The Public Defender Mental Health Unit also represents mentally 
ill clients in criminal cases who have been sent to state hospitals. 
These are clients who have been found incompetent to stand trial (pur- 
suant to Section 1383 of the Penal Code) , who have been found not guilty 
by reason of insanity (pursuant to Section 1027 of the Penal Code) or 
who have been adjudged to be mentally disordered sex offenders (pursuant 
to Section 6300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code) . These clients 
are entitled to periodic review of their placement by the Court. The 
Public Defender must constantly monitor their progress, their treatment, 
and their diagnosis. 

These clients must be regularly visited and interviewed. If the 
state hospital makes an inappropriate recommendation for a patient, 
the Public Defender must bring that fact to the attention of the Court. 
If it is necessary a jury trial may be held to determine whether or not 
a person should be kept in a state hospital. 

The Mental Health Unit is supervised by Estella W. Dooley, a 
nationally recognized expert on mental health law. Mrs. Dooley is as- 
sisted by three attorneys and by two investigators. 

In fiscal year 1979-1980, this Unit handled a total of 1,470 cases. 
This total includes the following activities : 

Lanterman-Petris-Short Petitions, new: 577 

Lanterman-Petris -Short Petitions, renewed: 566 

Writs of Habeas Corpus: 208 

Probate Cases: 81 

Preliminary Hearings in Criminal Cases : 9 



- 30 - 






Proceedings Pursuant to Section 1370 Penal 

Code (Incompetence) 2 

Proceedings Pursuant to Section 1372 Penal 

Code (Restoration of Competence) 7 

Proceedings Pursuant to Section 1026.5 Penal 
Code: 6 

Proceedings Pursuant to Section 1026.2 Penal 
Code: 5 

Proceedings Pursuant to Section 7375 Penal 
Code: 9 

7. Investigation 

The Investigative Unit currently has five civil service investiga- 
tors, including a Chief Investigator, Harry Guyton. 

The Unit has one investigator paid on a CETA grant, a typist, and 
a legal process server. This Unit received and performed on 1,107 in- 
vestigation requests. 

The Unit conducts investigation of the cases as requested by Deputy 
Public Defenders. During Fiscal Year 1979-1980 the Investigation Unit 
acted upon requests in felonies, in misdemeanors and in juvenile cases. 

VIII. MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST 
1. Affirmative Action 

This office has made the commitment to affirmative action a first 
priority. Emphasis has been placed on the hiring of minorities, women, 
and gay persons at all levels of employment. The office has filed a 
model Affirmative Action Plan this year with the Human Rights and the 
Civil Service Commissions. Most important, the office has been imple- 
menting that plan and we are on schedule in fulfilling its goals. Since 
January 1979, over 50% of the appointments and the promotions in the 



- 31 - 



office have been of women. Special emphasis has been put upon the 

19/ 
exempt classification. — As a result nearly 40% of the professional 

staff is of Third World ancestry and of the professional staff, just 

about 507o are women. 

Affirmative action makes sense. It allows for an office which re- 
presents all kinds of people to have the benefit of diverse backgrounds, 
language, and cultures. These policies tell our clients that we are an 
office of multi-racial and multi-cultural people. 

The Civil Service Commission does not include lesbians and gay men 
in affirmative action plans. This is because City legislation and for- 
mal agreements with the federal government do not allow for the inclu- 
sion of gay people in the criteria of affirmative action programs. 
This office, however, feels that an affirmative action plan for lesbian 
women and gay men is important, particularly for San Francisco. Gay 
people now are, and have always been in the past, victims of discrimi- 
nation. Out- front gays have been historically under-represented in of- 
fices such as that of the Public Defender. 
2. Client Satisfaction Measurement 

The Public Defender's Office is presently trying to get the finan- 
cial assistance of a funding foundation in a program to measure the re- 
action of clients to the legal representation which they have received. 
The idea of such a survey would be to identify common problems and de- 
ficiencies and to take corrective action. The methadology for conduc- 
ting this survey would have to be established by a social scientist. 

It is undeniable and it is also understandable, that based on 
past outrages committed by incompetent lawyers, that clients of public 

19/ Those not subject to Civil Service testing. 



- 32 - 



defender offices feel distrustful, and are often contemptuous, of their 

20/ 
lawyers. — We are determined to reverse this crippling public rela- 
tions deficit between Public Defenders and their clients. Successful 
representation in a criminal case is dependent upon complete trust and 
rapport. 

A good sampling of the defendant's perspective of his attorney 
would provide an opportunity to find out those factors which most com- 
monly hinder a healthy lawyer-client relationship, such as the inability 
of lawyers to communicate with their clients, unintentional discourtesies 
towards the client by the office, or whatever reason. The result of the 

knowledge obtained in such a survey ultimately will be a healthier Cri- 

- 
minal Justice System. 

3. Increased Computerization 

The task of collecting the data for this report has been tedious , 
time consuming, and very costly. The computer revolution has developed 
technology which can vastly improve and simplify record keeping. Much 
of the record keeping and compiling of statistics is duplication. Through 
the increased computerization of the record keeping of the Public Defen- 
der's Office there will be greater and better use of time by employees 
as well as more accurate and more readily available information which 
can be obtained. 

The office has significantly increased the use of computers in the 

21/ 
past year. — ' We are excited by the potential for further increase of 

computers for many functions of the office. In the next year we expect: 

20/ See Casper, The Defendant's Perspective (LEAA: 1978) 

21 / In January 1980 there were a total of 2,330 computer inquiries from 
the Public Defender's Office. This rose to 3,462 for November, 1980 
(C.M.S. Report, December, 1980). 



- 33 - 



(1) To begin the conversion of a manual record 
keeping system to a computerized system; 

(2) To design new programs which will provide 
quick, accurate information about attorney 
caseloads and attorney performance; 

(3) To design programs for the retrieval of 
specific types of cumulative statistical 
information. 

4. Law Student Program 

The University of San Francisco Law School has a program in which 
third-year students handle public defender cases in court under the 
supervision of two attorney administrators from the staff of the law 
faculty. For many years this program operated as a part of the Marin 
County Public Defender's Office. This year our office took over the 
program. We have obtained generous grants from The San Francisco Foun- 
dation and from the San Francisco Bar Foundation, money was made avail- 
able for space and for supplies for the students in the program. The 
program has been directed by Art Abelson and by Susan Rutberg. Between 
September 7 and November 1, a total of 88 cases were represented through 
the program -- 73 of these were misdemeanors. 29 of the cases were 
handled to completion by the students. Of those 29 cases, 23 were dis- 
missed. 

The students worked with the attorneys on the regular Public Defen- 
der staff. They interviewed witnesses, they provided research assistance, 
and they drafted legal pleadings. 

Ms. Rutberg and Mr. Abelson themselves handled 15 felony prelimin- 
ary hearings with the assistance of the U.S.F. students. Five of these 



- 34 - 



■ 



; 



hearings resulted in the charges being reduced to misdemeanors, two 
cases were dismissed, one case went to the Superior Court, and seven 
cases are still pending. 

One student handled a misdemeanor trial which resulted in an 
acquittal. 
5. Participation of Volunteer Attorneys and State Public Defender 

The Public Defender's Office has benefited from the participation 
of volunteer lawyers from major San Francisco law firms: Pillsbury, 
Madison 6c Sutro; Morrison & Foerster; and Farella, Braun & Martel. 
These firms donate the work and time of the attorneys who are usually 
members of the firm's litigation department. The lawyers work on a 
daily basis as public defenders for a specified period of time (usually 
six months). The work of these attorneys has been outstanding. The 
City owes a debt of gratitude to these law firms for the generous dona- 
tion of this legal talent. 

The office has begun an exchange program with the State Public 
Defender's Office in which a Deputy State Public Defender comes to this 
office to work in exchange for a Deputy County Public Defender being 
sent to the State Public Defender's Office. The purpose of the exchange 
is to allow members of the State Public Defender to get experience hand- 
ling cases on the trial level and to allow the County Public Defender to 
develop appellate skills. This program will be continued and expanded. 
The office has benefited by the presence of a skilled appellate attorney 
with extensive writing skills. The San Francisco Public Defender's Of- 
fice attorneys have benefited by their exposure to appellate work and 
to the craftsmanship of intensive legal writing. The experience has 
added good exposure to another dimension of legal work and has broade- 
ned the lawyer's professional capacity. 

- 35 - 



6. Involvement in Public Issues 

For years the community has heard only the voice of prosecutors 
and of police chiefs on the subject of crime. Too little public in- 
terest has focused on the need to protect the rights of the accused. 
At a time when public frustration and outrage about crime is at fever 
pitch, it is important that Public Defenders bring to the attention 
of the community the voice of reason. This is a need which is based 
upon common justice and humanity as well as upon the tradition of pro- 
tecting civil liberty within our society. Defendants are human beings 
who are entitled to be treated decently by the police. If people are 
incarcerated they should be kept in humanely maintained jails. During 
the past year this office spoke out forcefully to our community on 
these issues. We will continue to do so. 

(a) County Jail Reform -- Since December 1978 the incumbent 
Public Defender has expressed public concern about the treatment of 
inmates in the county jails, especially the mentally ill. The current 
Public Defender filed an affidavit in federal court in support of the 
lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco regarding the 
City's grossly inadequate provisions for the mentally ill and in oppo- 
sition to the inexcusable use of mace to control emotionally disturbed 
persons. A series of private communications with the Sheriff's Depart- 
ment got nowhere. Finally with the suicides of Raymond Rabin and of 
Wayne Cullinane, the Public Defender made a strong public statement 
condemning these conditions. Fortunately the new Sheriff is seriously 
interested in correcting these deficiencies. 

(b) The Hotel Strike -- Last year in the early stages of the hotel 
strike there was a distinct possibility of major violence. An atmosphere 



- 36 - 



' 






of tension existed on both sides of the labor dispute and the presence 
of large numbers of uniformed officers at many of the hotels intensified 
this pressure. This office worked as mediators to bring about peace- 
ful conditions between representatives of the hotel industry, of Local 
2, and of the police in order to cool tempers and to work out the ar- 
rangements for peaceful picketing. The activities of the Public Defen- 
der's Office were successful in preventing arrests, in heading off sub- 
stantial destruction of property, and grave personal injury. 

(c) Anti-Crime Programs -- The office appreciates public frustra- 
tion regarding crime. Because of the irresponsible rheotoric of poli- 
ticians, many individuals believe, erroneously, that the police are 
handcuffed by appellate court decisions which favor the defendant. Our 
society must not be so shortsighted about the protection of essential 
civil liberties. Great care must be taken in order not to destroy the 
constitutional guarantees which are the refuge of freedom for all mem- 
bers of society. 

When it was suggested by the Mayor's Office that the City endorse 
a state legislative package which would have virtually abolished the 

Bill of Rights, the present Public Defender spoke out vigorously against 

22/ 
this program. — As a result of this opposition, the Mayor is re-think- 
ing her position and has indicated she will seek the views of all com- 
ponents of the Criminal Justice system, including the defense bar, be- 
fore announcing an anti-crime legislative package. 

Presently the Public Defender's Office is quite concerned about an 
unprecedented rise in complaints of police mistreatment of, and police 
brutality against, citizens of San Francisco. Attorneys in the office 

22/ See S.F, Examiner, November 29, 1980: "Mayor's Crime Package 
Causes Concern." 

- 37 - 



are struck by the frequency and by the consistency of the complaints 
of individual citizens about vicious police conduct. Should this 
activity by the police continue, the Public Defender's Office will 
undertake the appropriate legal action to protect the citizens of 
San Francisco under Section 27706 of the Government Code. 
7. Early Representation of Clients 

Legal services for persons arrested must be provided at the ear- 
liest opportunity. A person arrested needs to know what he is charged 
with and whether or not he should freely speak about the charges or 
keep silent. For this reason in 1975 in an agreement with the Bar 
Association, former Public Defender Nicco pledged "The Public Defender 
will interview arrested indigent persons who desire services of an 
attorney as early as possible after arrest. He will take all steps 

necessary to assure that newly arrested persons are notified of the 

23/ 
possible right to Public Defender services...." — 

The implementation of this proposal has been difficult. Few 
arrestees make calls to the Public Defender, despite the fact that 
the Public Defender's number is posted at the place of booking. 

The Public Defender's Office hopes to remedy the situation by: 

(1) Having the Sheriff's Department distribute a 
pamphlet with a listing of detailed information 
about the legal rights and the services avail- 
able through the office. This pamphlet will 

be printed in English, Spanish, and Chinese. 

(2) Expansion of week-end and holiday duty by 
Public Defender attorneys. 

23/ Memorandum, opionion cited, page 1. 

- 38 - 



(3) Convincing magistrates to arraign defendants 
immediately after their arrests (rather than 
this being done three to four days later) . 

(4) Monitoring news reports bout recent arrests 
and getting to the arrested person. 

Telephones 



No complaint about the Public Defender's Office has been more per- 
Lstent in recent years than the difficulty in telephoning and in re- 
ding attorneys at the office. The lines are usually jammed. Indi- 
Lduals calling the office have been placed on hold for long periods. 

The telephone problem for some time has defied any rational solu- 
Lon. The major difficulty has been that there are eight rotation 
Lnes into the office for the use of more than 100 employees. Indi- 
Ldual dictation by the laweyrs also was done over the telephones which 
Lugged into the Office's Word Processing Center. All of these things 
ide the phone system impossible. In 1979 the Office attempted to al- 
Bviate the pressure on the main phone lines by establishing individual 
Lrect lines for attorneys. However dissemination of the individual 
imbers has been difficult and continued use of the eight main lines 
1 the attorneys has caused the phones to continue to be jammed. One 
>erator very often has had to handle five (sometimes six) incoming 
ills at the same time. 

This year, CETA provided the Office with a second telephone op- 
rator. We are acutely aware of the problem on the phones. We will 
ike every effort to provide the best service. But the phone problem 
i a symptom of an office that does not have secretaries for lawyers, 
id must make-do with limited support personnel. 



- 39 - 



«...-■-. 
>F 

'i 

<180-8| 



ANNUAL REPORT 

^ OF THE 

JSAN FRANCISCO 
KV PUBLIC DEFENDER 



SEPTEMBER 15, 1981 



JEFF BROWN PETER G. KEANE 

PUBLIC DEFENDER CHIEF ATTORNEY 



ANNUAL REPORT 
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
FISCAL YEAR 1980-1981 
SEPTEMBER 15, 1981 



JEFF BROWN PETER G. KEANE 

PUBLIC DEFENDER CHIEF ATTORNEY 



DEDICATION 

TO 

GARY FALDESY 
and 
THOMAS BRUYNEEL 

Who recently served as Head Trial Attorneys 
for the Office of the Public Defender. 
They made a difference. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I . INTRODUCTION 1 

II . JURISDICTION 7 

III. OFFICE STRUCTURE, STAFF, BUDGET AND WORKLOAD... 9 

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT 17 

V. FELONY UNIT 23 

VI. MISDEMEANOR UNIT 3 5 

VII. JUVENILE UNIT 4 

VIII .MENTAL HEALTH UNIT 45 

IX. RESEARCH UNIT 50 

X. INVESTIGATION UNIT 52 

XI . OTHER MATTERS OF INTEREST 56 

1. Affirmative Action 56 

2. Relations With District Attorney 57 

3 . Law Student Program 57 

4. Volunteer Lawyers 58 

5. Removal From The Hall Of Justice 59 

APPENDIX 

A. Felony Charges In Superior Court 61 

B. Misdemeanor Charges 62 



TABLES 

PAGE 
TABLE 

A. Breakdown Of Expenditure Source 12 

B. Cost Breakdown 13 

C. Program Costs — Salary And Fringe 

Cost By Activity 14 

D. Comparative Budgets 15 

E. Caseload Fiscal Year 1980-1981 16 

F. Court-Appointed Counsel Costs 22 

G. Public Defender Cases In Superior 

Court 27 

H. Fiscal Year Comparisons For Felony 

Cases 29 

I. Misdemeanor And Infractions 1976-1980 36 

J. Work Of Misdemeanor Unit — Fiscal Year 

1980-1981 37 

K. Juvenile Unit Work 42 

L. Fiscal Year Comparison For Juvenile 

Unit 43 

M. Summary Of Mental Health Unit Work 4 8 

N. Disposition Of Mental Healty Cases 48 

O. Comparison Between Fiscal Year 

1979-1980 And 1980-1981 49 



Section 33 of the Charter: 



" [The Public Defender] shall immediately, 
upon the request of a defendant who is 
financially unable to employ counsel, or 
upon order of the court, defend or give 
advice to a person charged with the com- 
mission of a crime. " 



I. INTRODUCTION 

The San Francisco Public Defender's Office will be 60 
years old on October 10, 1981. The office was established 
decades before the Supreme Court required appointed counsel 
for poor people in criminal cases. This pioneering effort 
in creating the Public Defender reflected the best qualities 
of San Francisco — a commitment to humane values, a heart- 
felt sense of fairness, a deep respect for our constitution. 

But these last 60 years have been mostly difficult. 
Courageous lawyers had to struggle to maintain a semblance 
of due process. Public Defender clients confronted the over- 
whelming power of the police and the prosecution. They were 
menaced by unsympathetic juries, judges, and a body of law 
that heavily favored conviction. They were assisted by public 
defenders who had too many other cases and too little help. 
Through those years countless innocent persons went to pri- 
son; some even to death. 

Today the Public Defender is the guardian of liberty 
in our courts. This present posture is the culmination of 
a long struggle for adequate staff, professional standards, 



and solid management. This growth, this evolution of autho- 
rity, was helped by the great decisions of the Supreme Courts 
of California and the United States which mandated that 
communities maintain programs for the effective assistance 
of counsel and which gave specific meaning to the Bill of 
Rights. In sum, we have enough lawyers, enough good law to 
protect the rights of every client of this office. 

But we cannot become complacent. Our responsibilities 
are too pressing, too exacting, and too numerous. It would 
be very easy to lose our gains. We must remember our history. 

This Annual Report will detail the programs, the costs, 
and the work in each activity of the Public Defender's Office. 
It will set forth the Management-By-Objective goals for each 
administrative unit and discuss their relevancy to our work. 
But before turning to these individual programs, we should 
state the fundamental themes of the administration of the 
present Public Defender. They give greater clarity to the 
remainder of this document. 

The Assurance Of High Quality Legal Representation . 

This administration is uncompromising in its insistance 
on high professional standards. We have promulgated those 
standards in writing. We use the appointive power vested 
in the Public Defender to hire, fire, and promote as a means 
of selecting and retaining individuals who fulfill such 
standards. The challenge to provide first-rate representation 
for our clients is paramount. 



- 2 - 



Strong Management and Supervision 

If high professional standards are to be maintained, 
good management and supervision must exist. Good manage- 
ment means that performance standards are upheld, that 
there are quality controls through the organizational 
routine. The strengths and weaknesses of personnel are 
identified. Good management means also that resources of 
office are intelligently allocated, so that some personnel 
are not overburdened while others are underutilized. Finally 
it means that the personnel have a chance to professionally 
develop. The manager gives guidance to the employee, so 
that skills are refined and failure is not repeated. 

We have chosen carefully among the ranks for men and 
women who can meet the demands of management. We have 
organized a structure which makes it possible for policy 
to reach the front-line employees and makes it possible 
to judge the effectiveness of policies. Management works 
in the Public Defender's Office. It is not a form of re- 
tirement. 

Improved Staffing and Increased Resources 

This administration began in 1979 with a large per- 
centage of CETA personnel — approximately 50% of the staff. 
Between 1979 and 1981 CETA was cut back.. In those years we 
made prodigious efforts to convert CETA positions into 



-3- 



permanent positions. We have been successful. A great 
note of thanks is due Peter G. Keane, the Chief Attorney, 
who negotiated the budget during those years. The office 
now functions with roughly the same number of persons as 
it did in 1978. But unlike 1978, the positions are now 
filled with more experienced and adequate persons. 

In the months ahead, a new fiscal struggle will begin: 
we will make maximum efforts to obtain a better physical 
environment for our staff. The same energy will be devoted 
to that struggle as we did to secure staff. A major effort 
will be made to expand the physical space of the Public De- 
fender's Office. 

An Improved Community Relations 

The San Francisco Committee On Crime in 1970 after an 
exhaustive survey of the office observed: 

"There is deep-seated antagonism toward 
the San Francisco Public Defender's Office 
among minority groups, particularly in the 
Black communities of Hunter's Point and the 
Western Addition, and particularly among per- 
sons 23 years of age and younger. Many cli- 
ents represented by the Public Defender's 
Office hold the Office personally responsible 
for the treatment the City gives them and 
which they resent." (At page 4.) 

In large part this feeling was justified. The office 
did not make the clients, particularly minority clients, feel 
confortable with their representation. The quality of lawyer- 



- 4 - 



ing often was inadequate. There were too many cases, and 
attorneys spent too little time with the client or in pre- 
paration of the case. The clientele felt they were being 
led like "sheep to the slaughter," as one Public Defender 
remarked in 1973. 

Moreover, the office was not a part of the great strug- 
gle of those years. It did not litigate the landmark cases 
in the appellate courts. It did not speak out against police 
brutality. Its men and women were removed from the struggle? 
for equal rights. 

Finally the office did not reflect the emerging popula- 
tion of the City. It was for most of those 60 years lily- 
white. 

But change has come to this office. Affirmative action 
is a central part of the hiring and promotional process. We 
are an office that now partakes of the action and the passion 
of the community. We are not reluctant to address the great 
issues, fight injustices, and educate public opinion on the 
need for procedural safeguards in the criminal justice system. 
Finally, we occupy an important role in the formulation of 
criminal justice policy in City government. There is a need 
for non-police and non-prosecution perspective in planning for 
public protection. And we serve this need. 



- 5 - 



Toughness 

In a criminal case the attorney must provide zealous 
and effective representation on behalf of the client. The 
attorney's undivided loyalty must be to the client. 

Public defender offices are somewhat of an anomaly 
within the criminal justice system. On the one hand, their 
attorneys must give the same undivided loyalty to the inter- 
ests of their clients which any attorney would provide. On 
the other hand, they are usually governmental entities, 
funded by government. And because they represent a major 
share of the defendants in the criminal courts, public de- 
fender offices have an impact well beyond the lives of their 
clients, an impact that affects the entire criminal justice 
system. 

This anomalous role is a major source of problems for 
public defenders. An aggressive public defender who places 
the clients' interests above all else may find himself /herself 
at odds with the court system. Such a public defender will, 
for example, be less interested in the movement of cases on 
the calendar, or he/she may feel it necessary to exercise a 
peremptory challenge in all cases against an unfair judge. 
Inevitably, pressure builds. Calls come in from presiding 
judges, from court executives, or some other party affected 
by the hard-line actions of a Public defender in defending a 
client. 



- 6 - 



But the public defender must be independent enough 
to stand up to this pressure, must not sacrifice the in- 
dividual's interest to the demands of the court or the 
prosecutor. This does not mean that a Public Defender 
must be needlessly intransigent or quarrelsome, but it 
does mean that the Public Defender is a lawyer first and 
foremost. 

In this administration we have placed emphasis on 
the independence of this office and the independence of 
the public defender in the court. Strong-willed attorneys 
have stayed in courts, despite continuous complaints from 
judges. Attorneys challenged judges who were unfair, and 
they resisted illegal, extra- jurisdictional orders. This 
is a public defender's office with a backbone, and that is 
the way we are going to stay. 



- 7 - 



II. JURISDICTION 

The Public Defender is a creature of the Charter of 
the City and County of San Francisco. The Charter provides 
that the Public Defender will represent persons who have 
been charged with criminal offenses and who are without 
funds to pay for a privately retained lawyer. -' 

In addition to this specific grant of power by the 
Charter, the California Government Code also authorizes 

counties such as San Francisco to establish Public Defender 

2/ 

Offices. - The Government Code sets forth the types of 

cases which can be handled by a County Public Defender. 
These include: —' 



(1) Criminal cases upon request or by ap- 
pointment of the court; 

(2) Contempt cases; 

(3) Appeals; 

(4) Actions for the collection of wages or 
other demands under one-hundred dollars; 

(5) Defense of individuals in civil litiga- 
tion where a person is being harassed 
or persecuted; 



1/ Charter Section 33 

2/ Government Code Section 27706 

3/ Ibid. 



(6) Cases involving mental health guardian- 
ships and conservatorships; 4/ 

(7) Juvenile cases. 



The Welfare and Institutions Code also provides for 
the appointment of attorneys for indigent parents whose 
custody rights are subject to proceedings for suspension 
or termination. ■ — ' 

The law, thus, provides for Public Defender represen- 
tation in a wider spectrum of activities. The great bulk 
of that effort is in the criminal courts. But this office 
is also extremely active in representing persons in mental 
health and juvenile cases. 

III. O FFICE STRUCTURE, STAFF, BUDGET, AND WORKLOAD 
1. Office Structure 
The executive officer of the Public Defender's Office 
is the Public Defender. The Public Defender is elected 

every four years. The Public Defender appoints all Deputy 

6 / 
Public Defenders and a Confidential Secretary. — These 

employees serve at his pleasure. The balance of the staff, 
which includes investigators, secretarial, and other sup- 
port personnel are subject to Civil Service rules. 

The Chief Attorney is the second Executive Officer of 
the department. The Chief Attorney is the person to whom 

4/ Probate Code Section 1471 also provides for Public De- 
fender appointment in probate guardianships under spe- 
cified conditions. 

5/ Sections 634, 317, Welfare and Institutions Code. 

6/ Charter Section 3.47 



- 9 - 



all other supervisors directly report. The Chief Attorney 
is acting Public Defender should the latter leave the state, 
There are six administrative units in the Public Defen- 
der's Office. Five of these six relate directly to legal 
representation; and are under the direction of Supervising 
Attorneys. These include: 



(1) Midemeanor Unit : 20 attorneys in 6 
Municipal Courts; 

(2) Felony Unit : 31 attorneys in both the 
Municipal Court (Felony Division) and 
in the Superior Court; 

(.3) Mental Health Unit : 4 attorneys, 1 
investigator, and a secretary; 

(4) Juvenile Unit : 7 attorneys, 1 investi- 
gator, 1 part-time psychologist, 2 social 
workers, 3 clerical-secretarial personnel; 

(5) Research Unit : 1 attorney and 3 para- 
legals. 



The other two supervisory units are the Administrative 
and Investigation Units. These are supervised by the Execu- 
tive Assistant and the Chief Investigator respectively. 

2. Staff 

The office has a total of 107 employees. This includes 



Permanent Temporary Total 



6 6 lawyers 

11 investigators 

6 steno-transcribers 

8 clerk-typists 



48 


18 


66 


3 


8 


11 


3 


3 


6 




8 


8 



- 10 - 



Permanent Temporary Total 

3 paralegals 3 3 

7 legal process clerks 7 7 

1 accountant 1 1 

1 executive assistant 1 1 

2 telephone operators 2 2 
2 part-time social workers 2 2 
1 part-time psychologist 1 1 



109 

With the exception of the part-time psychologist and the 
social workers, all positions are funded by revenues of the 
City and County of San Francisco. A part-time psychologist 
and two social workers are employed under a grant from the 
State of California under A.B. 90 where subventions are pro- 
vided to localities for juvenile justice programs. Addition- 
ally there are temporary positions which are funded through 
October 1, 1981 by Community Development (Title II) money. 

The majority of Public Defender positions are permanent 
Civil Service. However a total of 52 others are designated 
as temporary positions. Most of these temporary positions, 
which includes lawyers, investigators, and various other 
support personnel, are funded out of the Mayor's Emergency 
Crime Package. This Crime Package was responsible for main- 
taining the personnel level in the office. When the CETA 
program concluded, 40 positions were absorbed by the City 
and County for this office. 



- 11 - 



3. Budget 

Although the Public Defender Budget for Fiscal Year 
1981-1982 represents the major funding for the Public De- 
fender, there are other expenditure sources. These would 
include temporary positions funded out of the Mayor's Crime 
Package as well as expenditures for the Word Processing Center 
(that has been transferred to the Police Budget) , A.B. 90 
funds, or Title II funds. 

We have added together all expenditures of the depart- 
ment. We have further broken them down by cost category, 

by program or activity, and we have compared them to expen- 

7/ 
ditures in other fiscal years. — 

The total budget for the Public Defender's Office for 

Fiscal Year 1981-1982 is $3,839,327. 

TABLE A 
Breakdown Of Expenditure Source 

Budget for Fiscal Year 1981-1982: $2,904,423 

Mayor's Crime Package: 804,967 

Title II (until October 1981): 62,277 

A.B. 90 71,660 



$3,843,327 



7/ Caveat : We have not included expenditures for expert 

witnesses, for special costs ordered by the Court, i.e., 
travel, or for money ordered in capital cases pursuant 
to Section 987.9 Penal Code. Those expenditures have 
been part of the court's budget. 



- 12 - 



TABLE B 

Cost Breakdown 

Salaries $3,062,227.00 

Fringes 629,285.00 

Salary and Fringes Subtotal 3,091,512.00 

Contractual Services 15,200.00 

Other Services 36,405.00 

Material and Supplies 15,465.00 

Rental of Property 6,960.00 

Equipment 2, 150. 00 

Repairs 8,3 07.0 

Data Processing 62,363.00 

Reproduction 535. 00 

Travel 150.00 

Adult Probation 4,480.00 

Non-Salary Subtotal 152,015.00 

Total Costs $3,84 3,327.00 



13 - 



TABLE C 
Program Costs — Salary And Fringe 
Costs By Activity 8/ 

Public Defender, Chief Attorney, 

and Special Projects $ 217,004 

Administrative 361,091 

Felony 1,573,886 

Misdemeanor 540,243 

Juvenile 438,905 

Mental Health 226,636 

Investigation 230,739 

Research 103,008 

$3,091,512 



8/ Table C indicates allocation of salaries among the 
various activities of the office. This breakdown 
is probably as close as one could come to accurate 
"program costs." The determination of a true pro- 
gram cost would require an apportionment of $152,015 
in non-personnel costs and another $24,000 involved 
in the cost of the Word Processing Center. That would 
be painstaking and given the small amount of money 
would not have a significant impact on the relative 
distribution of resources. 



- 14 - 



TABLE D 
Comparative Budgets 

1978-1979 1979-1980 1980-1981 

Ad Valorem $2,201,463.00 $2,207,211.00 $2,878,032* 

CETA Not Available 528,892.00 416,125.00 

Title II Not Available 162,076.00 206,573.00 

LEAAA.B.90 Not Available 73,739.00 52,751.00 

Total Budget Not Available $2,971,918.00 $3,553,481.00 



%Increase in Not Available Not Available 19.56 
Total Budget 

*lncludes $24,000 Word Processing costs now paid out of Police 
Budget. 



- 15 - 



1, 


r 960 




327 




27 


2, 


r 314 


4, 


,232 




155 


4, 


,387 


6, 


,701 



4. Summary of Caseload 

During Fiscal Year 1980-1981 the Public Defender's 
Office represented a total of 20,086 clients. An itemized 
breakdown is set forth in Table E. -^ 

TABLE E 

— — . _— 

Caseload 1980-1981 
Superior Court Felonies: 
Motions to Revoke 
C.R.C. Returns 



Municipal Court Felonies: 
Extradition 

Superior and Municipal 
Court Felonies 

Less (number of felony cases 
held-to-answer and later in 
Superior Court) 

Total Felony Cases: 

Misdemeanors 

Motions to Revoke 



Juvenile 

Mental Health 

Total Cases 20,086 



9/ A case is defined as a charge or series of charges arising 
out of a single accusatory pleading or consolidated accusa- 
tory pleadings. Thus, if a defendant were charged in one 
complaint with five charges, that nevertheless would be 
considered one case. Likewise if two defendants were 
charged in one complaint that still would be one case. 
Finally, if two complaints were consolidated, there would 
still be only one case. 



1, 


,251 


5, 


,450 


8, 


,622 


1, 


,809 


io ( 


,431 


2, 


,418 


1, 


,387 



- 16 - 



IV. ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT 

Program : (1) To provide fiscal management for the office. 

(2) To provide clerical and secretarial services for the 

office. (3) To provide data collection and statistical 

analyses. 

Program Cost ; $361,091 

The Administrative Unit is managed by Sharon Christensen, 

the Executive Assistant. The Unit consists of four components: 

(1) Word Processing Center (4 steno-transcribers) ; 

(.2) Legal Process Clerks (7 persons) . 

(.3) Accountant (.1 accountant and 1 clerk) ; 

(4) Reception Area Workers (1 telephone operator, 
2 receptionists) . 

Word Processing 

The Word Processing Center is an operation of maximum 
efficiency. Four steno-transcribers type out the dictation 
and the written drafts of the entire legal staff. The work 
can be dictated by telephone with touch-tones at any time 
day or night. The turn-around time is usually less than 
24 hours, except for very long documents. The quality of 
the work is first-rate. Two of the most outstanding employees 
in the Public Defenders Office, Sandy Gordon and Penny Poblete, 
work in the Center. 



- 17 - 



Legal Process Clerks 

Six of the seven legal process clerks work in the 
six misdemeanor courts. They record the court trans- 
actions relating to Public Defender clients. They then 
take those records and place the information on index 
cards. At the end of each week they compile statistics 
on the week's work. 

In court they not only record these transactions, 
but also assist the clients by providing information about 
Public Defender eligibility, attorneys' assignments, and 
court dates. 

Accounting 

A major difficulty in a large office is preparing a 
payroll, preparing a budget, bookkeeping and keeping track 
of MBO performance. 

MBO Goals 

1) To fully computerize data collection and statis - 
tical reporting . 

The Public Defender's Office has use of a shared com- 
puter system. We have computer terminals that are connected 
up to a central court computer. We can retrieve information 
about cases, clients, attorneys, charges and caseloads. 

This system holds the greatest promise for cost savings, 
accurate management information, and performance evaluation. 



- 18 



Savings — There are seven legal process clerks engaged 
in data collection. They sit in court and record transactions 
relating to Public Defender cases. They return their work 
sheets, total them up, and clerk typists place the information 
on index cards. However, the clerks in the courts have simul- 
taneously recorded the same information, and court personnel 
have placed it in the computer. Public Defender personnel 
have totally and needlessly duplicated that work. All that 
really needs to be done is to extract it from our computer 
terminal. Through use of the computer we can save thousands 
of man hours. 

Management Information — With 65 attorneys it is imper- 
ative that work be intelligently allocated. To do this, mana- 
gers must be aware of the up-to-date information about work- 
loads. Data on caseloads makes it possible for managers to 
shift work to personnel in an equitable manner, avoiding both 
overloading and under-utilization of attorneys, insuring maxi- 
mum efficiency. 

Performance Evaluation — How an attorney is performing 
can be measured, to some extent, quantitatively. For example, 
if an attorney never tries a case or pleads an inordinately 
high number of persons to state prison, that fact will show 
up on the stats. But it is difficult and time consuming. 
Automated data systems make such information easy to come by. 

The above considerations make the case for computerized 
data systems. But the present system suffers from several 
drawbacks. 



- 19 - 



The present system is less than reliable . This system 
is designed as a means of tracking cases, not keeping track 
of dispositions. The system can answer an inquiry about 
where a case is, but it is not always accurate about who the 
attorney is, or what happened to the case. Internal checks 
do not exist to insure accuracy and identify common sources 
of error. 

The present system has no economical means of storing 
historical data . A case goes off-line after 120 days of its 
final disposition. It is extremely difficult to retrieve 
the stored off-line data. Thus inquiries about past clients 
cannot be quickly answered. 

In the next fiscal year, we will be working to overcome 
these difficulties. We expect that with the cooperation of 
C.M.S. coordinator and the Mayor's Office, steps towards full 
computerization can be accomplished. We expect two immediate 
benefits of full computerization: 

(1) Savings through the elimination of duplicatory 
manual labor — a minimum of $50,000 per year; 

(.2) MBO reporting which is accurate and verifiable. 



- 20 - 



f 



2) To reduce conflict costs by 15% — ' 



Often a conflict-of-interest arises that prevents 
this office from representing a defendant. Usually the 
conflict exists where there are co-defendants in a case, 
and we can only represent one person; or where we are re- 
presenting a witness in some other criminal case. As 
Table E indicates, conflict-of-interest cases cost the 
City substantial amounts each year. The City in 1980 
spent $920,000 for the appointment of a counsel in con- 
flict cases. This year the City will spend over one- 
million dollars. The average conflict case costs $622, 
whereas the average Public Defender case costs less than 
$150. — / 



10/ We have placed this MBO goal and discussion in this 
section for the sake of convenience. In fact, the 
responsibility for carrying the MBO goal out be- 
longs to the Chief Attorney. Given its overall im- 
portance to the office, it is better treated here. 



11/ We arrive at this figure by dividing total expendi- 
tures, $3,843,327,000 (see Table C) by the total 
number of cases in Fiscal Year 1980-1981. We can 
also approximate the relative cost-per-case in 
felonies and misdemeanors at $330 per felony and 
$75 per misdemeanor. These figures are reached 
by dividing the sum of salary, administrative and 
investigative costs by the total number of felonies 
and misdemeanors for Fiscal Year 1980-1981. The 
assumption, of course, is that last year's caseload 
will be about the same. 



- 21 - 






TABLE F 



SAN FRANCISCO COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL COSTS 



Iendar 
ear 




1978 






1979 






1980 






Amount 


No. of 
Claims 


Av.cost 

per 

Claim 


No. of 
Amount Claims 


Av.cost 

per 

Claim 


Amount 


No. of 
Claims 


Av.cost 

per 

Claim 


perior 
Durt 




















iminal 
senile 


$244,467 
116,384 


392 
448 


$624 
Z<bO 


$266,170 
124,832 


468 
446 


$569 
280 


$464,951 
134,380 


714 
468 


$651 
287 


tal 




















perior 
urt 

St 


$360,851 


gAO 


A2?o 


$391,002 






$599,331 


1182 


507 


nicipal 
ourt 


$219,645 


not 
avail 


not 
avail 


$253,056 


not 
avail 


not 
avail 


$321,169 


1478 


217 


and 
tal 


$580,496 


1870 


$310.4 


$644,058 


not 
avail. 


not 
avail. 


$920,500 


2660 


34<o 



(Source: San Francisco Bar Association) 

3) T o install WANG word processing and return docu- 
ments in 36 hours and rush documents in 24 hours . 

The Word Processing Center turns out thousands of docu- 
ments every year. The four steno-transcribers work exclusively 
on typing and assembling legal documents and correspondence. 
They are not encumbered by other secretarial duties. Although 
the system maximizes economies it is extremely vulnerable. If 
one employee, especially one of two experienced transcribers, 
is on vacation or ill, the system can slow down through over- 
load. 



- 22 - 



The equipment is now ten years out of date. It will 
be replaced this year by a WANG system that will have in- 
creased storage capacity, faster typing speed, and a screen 
for the typist to view the typed page during preparation. 

4) To reduce long distance calls on centrex number . 

The long distance bill on the centrex lines during 
certain months has been staggering. In the last three 
months it has ranged between $2,900 and $3,600. The pro- 
blem is that although there are private lines in offices 
of attorneys, most long distance calls are made on the 
centrex lines making it impossible to pinpoint the calls. 
The lack of accountability thus brings on obvious results. 

The centrex users need an interception for long dis - 
tance calls . There is simply no other way to control costs. 
The City must act without further delay. Studies and blue 
ribbon committees will cost the City a fortune in lost time. 

V. FELONY UNIT 

Program : To provide legal counsel in felony cases in 
the Municipal and Superior Courts. 
Program Cos t $1,573,886 

The Felony Unit is presently supervised by Chief Attorney 
Peter Keane and he is assisted by Head Trial Attorney Robert 
Berman. The unit consists of 31 attorneys. The unit's respon- 
sibility is the representation of all Public Defender felony 
cases. 

- 23 - 



The work of the attorneys in this unit begins in the 
Municipal Court where a felony defendant is arraigned on a 
charge. The Court makes a determination whether the indivi- 
dual defendant can afford his/her own attorney, and if he/she 
cannot, the Public Defender is appointed. The Public Defen- 
der will then make appropriate bail/OR motions and set a 
date for a preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing 
the prosecution will attempt to demonstrate that there is 
enough evidence to hold the defendant to answer in the 
Superior Court. The defendant has the right to cross- 
examine the prosecution witnesses or to call his/her own 
witnesses (although this is not usually done) . If the 
judge is satisfied that there is enough evidence ("reason- 
able and probable cause") the defendant can be "bound over," 
told to stand trial in the Superior Court, and the matter 
is transferred to that court. 

In the Superior Court the defendant is arraigned on 
the charges, and trial and pre-trial dates are set. 

When the defendant is in the Municipal Court he/she 
is assigned a Deputy Public Defender. That attorney will 
handle the case through the preliminary hearing. After the 
preliminary hearing, a new attorney may be assigned. This 
is commonly called "horizontal representation." Or the same 
attorney may represent the client all the way through the 
process both in the Municipal and Superior Courts. This 
we call "vertical representation." 



- 24 - 



This office is seeking to achieve vertical representa- 
tion in all felony cases. The responsibilities of represent- 
ing a client should not, if possible, be fragmented. The 
lawyer-client relationship is improved by a consistent re- 
presentation by one lawyer throughout the case. The client 
feels he/she is, in fact, represented by an attorney, an 
identifiable person, not a system. The relationship, which 
requires trust and confidence, has time to develop. Finally 
vertical representation does not suffer from gaps in the work- 
effort as the file is shifted from one attorney to another. 

But vertical representation requires that those attor- 
neys who participate in felony cases have the experience and 
expertise to try the cases in the Superior Court. If an of- 
fice has a relatively high number of newer attorneys, full 
vertical representation is not possible or even desirable. 
Horizontal representation to some degree must be utilized. 
Newer attorneys in less serious felonies can "break into" 
felony work by handling preliminary hearings in the Municipal 
Court. Their work is easily supervised because transcripts 
of preliminary hearings are available, and because the pre- 
liminary hearings are frequent and brief enough to be observed 
by supervisory personnel. 

Until September, the work of the Felony Unit was divi- 
ded into two units — one for the preliminary hearings and 
the other for the Superior Court. However, the supervision 



- 25 - 



and management of attorneys in felony vertical cases presen- 
ted administrative ambiguities. It was not really clear who 
those attorneys worked for. Moreover, this type of "zone" 
supervision made it difficult for supervisors to formulate 
policies about felony representation and to make decisions 
with respect to the disposition of specific cases. Their 
ability to supervise and to manage was limited in each and 
every instance by the stage the case happened to fall into. 
The Head Attorney for the Preliminary Hearing Courts was hesi- 
tant to make decisions that might entail an outcome in the 
Superior Court. By the same token a Head Attorney for the 
Superior Court might be reluctant to advise on the handling 
of a case at the preliminary stage, despite the fact that 
it might have an impact on the case when it went to trial 
in the Superior Court. 

Consequently it was decided that there be one direction 
from which policy emerged, one line of authority in each 
felony case. For that reason the Chief Attorney assumed 
management of all felony cases, with a Head Attorney in the 
role of an executive officer, assisting him in the implemen- 
tation of policy and in the supervision of the Unit. 



- 26 - 



TABLE G 

Public Defender Cases In Superior Court 

1. Types of Cases 

New or Unadjudicated Cases: 1,960 

Motions To Revoke 327 

C.R.C. Returns 27 

Total Cases in Fiscal 

Year 1980-1981 2,314 

(Source: C.M.S. Computer Printout 
July 14, 1980) 

2. Dispositions. 

New or Unadjudicated Cases 

Probation: 712 

State Prison: 397 

Dismissal: 247 

Reduction to Misdemeanor: 7 7 

Diversion 4 

C.R.C. 23 

C.Y.A. 21 

No Disposition Shown: 330 

Insanity Commitment: 20 

1368 47 

MDSO 10 

Miscellaneous 8 

(Source: C.M.S. Computer Printout 
Julv 14, 1980) 



- 27 - 



Dispositions 
Probation Revocations 

State Prison: 30 

Modified: 65 

Denied: 3 

No Disposition Shown 228 

C.R.C. 1 

(Source: C.M.S. Computer Print-out 
July 14, 1981) 

3. Trial Results 

Found Guilty (one or more felony) 114 

Found Not Guilty Of All Charges 12 

Found Guilty Misdemeanor 4 

Hung Juries 15 

Mistrial 6 

Not Guilty Insanity 2 

(Source: C.M.S. Computer Print-out July 
14, 1981, Public Defender records.) 

The foregoing tables indicate an extraordinary amount 
of work in the Superior Court. These statistics state an 
irrebuttable fact that the attorneys are vigorously fighting 
for their client's interests. Of 1,960 previously unadjudi- 
cated cases, as little as 20% resulted in state prison com- 
mitments. These statistics also indicate an incredible num- 
ber of complex and aggravated cases. As Appendix A demonst- 
rates, there were 258 robberies, 7 kidnappings, 243 aggra- 
vated assaults, 445 burglaries, 58 homicides, 22 rapes, 
among others. Of these cases, 4 were capital cases. 



- 28 - 



A word, perhaps, is in order about the statistics in 
Table G. The motion to revoke probation is uniformly 
filed against a defendant who is on probation in the Superior 
Court and who is faced with a new charge. The motion is 
usually heard before the trial date in the new case. It is 
heard by a judge who must decide whether there is "clear and 
convincing" evidence of the probation violation by the com- 
mission of the new offense. Hearsay is admissible in such 
a proceeding. This device is the primary means of causing a 
defendant to plead guilty to the new offense, very often for 
a state prison term. It contributes to the large number of 
state prison commitments out of this county. 

Preliminary Hearing Courts 

The Felony Unit in the preliminary hearing courts 
handled a total of 4,387 cases. Of these cases 1,251 were 
held-to-answer , 155 were fugitive cases involving extra- 
dition proceedings, and 105 were certified on pleas of 
guilty to the Superior Court. 

TABLE H 
Fiscal Year Comparison For Felony Cases 
1) New Cases - (Superior Court ) 

Fiscal Year 1978-1979 2,203 
Fiscal Year 1979-1980 2,035 
Fiscal Year 1980-1981 2,314 



- 29 - 



2) Number of Trials - (Superior Court ) 

Number 



Fiscal Year 1978-1979 
Fiscal Year 1979-1980 
Fiscal Year 1980-1981 



118 

82 

114 



Prior Conviction 
Rate 

75% 
77% 
65.5% 



3) Preliminary Hearing Cases 

Fiscal Year 1978-1979 
Fiscal Year 1979-1980 
Fiscal Year 1980-1981 



Cases 



Held To Answer 



3,000 


1,087 


3,620 


1,242 


4,232 


1,251 



Comment : Table H indicates an increased filing in 
Fiscal Year 1980-1981, up approximately 500 cases. Inter- 
estingly, the number of holdings has remained virtually 
constant. These figures conform with Superior Court and 
Municipal Court statistics this last fiscal year, where 
approximately a 25% increase in felony filings in the Muni- 
cipal Court is matched with a 5% increase in the number of 
arraignments. 



- 30 - 



MBO Objectives 

Activity: Preliminary Hearings 

1. To provide representation in 3,500 new cases and 
at least 150 fugitive cases . 

As Table G demonstrates, we can predict at least 2,500 
and perhaps 4,500 new preliminary hearing cases during this 
fiscal year. The office is totally dependent on the filing 
practices of the District Attorney but barring any great and 
unanticipated shifts, we predict this range to exist in the 
next few fiscal years. 

2. To submit all investigation requests within two 
days of the defendant's arraignment or the appointment of 
the Public Defender . 

Through continuous measurement of this objective, we 
feel that attorneys will submit early requests for investi- 
gation which will in turn better prepare them for preliminary 
hearings. It will also allow a more rational and planned al- 
location of services within the Investigative Unit. 

3. To provide four hours training per month per 
attorney . 

Training is essential for the attorney. It not only 
provides continuing legal education in the fastest developing 
area of the law, but it also assists in maturing the skills 
of the attorney. Finally it provides a clearing-house mecha- 
nism for new ideas and new techniques. This office cannot 






- 31 - 



afford to dispense with training. Thus the supervisors 
of the Felony Unit must make up the differences. 

4 . To improve supervision by reading transcripts of 
of all attorneys once a month . 

In supervising attorneys, the preliminary hearing has 
one distinct advantage: each case in which a defendant is 
held to answer is reduced to a transcript. The transcript 
is the unarguable truth of the attorney's skill. If objec- 
tions are overlooked, if cross-examination is weak, if argu- 
ments are less than clear, it is all there. Evaluating the 
progress of attorneys is essential if this office is going to 
insure quality work. Therefore supervision of this nature 
must be required. 

5 . Reduce the number of persons held to answer 10 % 
from 1,251 to 1,166. 

We are confident that with better training, greater ex- 
perience and better supervision the number of preliminary 
hearing holdings can be reduced. That they have held stable, 
despite an increase in felony complaints is largely due to 
the improved training, experience, and supervision that pre- 
sently exists. 

Undoubtedly, there are too many cases in the felony 
courts. That only 1 out of 4 felony preliminary hearing 
cases get to the Superior Court proves this point. We are 
going to squeeze harder. 



- 32 - 



Activity: Superior Court 

1. To represent at least 1,900 unadjudicated cases 
in the Superior Court . 

This goal may seem at odds with the previously stated 
goal of reducing holdings in the Superior Court. Notwithstand- 
ing improved preliminary hearing work by our office, we 
should expect approximately 1,900 unadjudicated cases in 
the next few fiscal years. Of this about 1,500 will be new 
cases. 

Three factors conceivably affect this activity level: 
(1) the gratification of downtown areas such as the Tenderloin 
(.2) decreasing population in low income areas (3) decreasing 
young adult population. Criminal justice planning should take 
account of such trends. Although these trends are in existence, 
they will not have a visible impact for another three to five 
years. 

2 . To increase the number of Superior Court jury trials 
by 10% - 12% . 

The health of a Public Defender's Office can in no small 
part be measured by the willingness of attorneys to take cases 
to trial. Plea bargaining unfortunately has become all too 
prevalent. An office that exclusively plea bargains will lose 
all perspective about the value of cases, and it will lose all 
trial expertise. 



- 33 - 



Plea bargaining often occurs for the wrong reasons. 
Some attorneys plea bargain because they do not want to 
trouble themselves preparing a defense. Others plea bar- 
gain because they are afraid of facing a jury. 

This office is insistent that more cases be tried: 
We will not be reckless by rejecting sound settlements 
and exposing our clients to serious penalties. But we 
try cases where our clients have strong defenses. We also 
try cases where the clients would be no worse off by losing 
before a jury, rather than pleading guilty. 

Table E demonstrates that we can try more cases without 
an increase in the conviction rate. In fact in Fiscal Year 
1980-1981 we increased the trials and the conviction rate 
dropped. We feel that we can further increase the trials 
without jeopardizing our clients. 

3 . To decrease the number of state prison commitments 
by 10% . 

Throughout the State of California the number of state 
prison commitments is on the rise. The number of new admis- 
sions to state prison in the last three years has risen from 

12/ 
9,325 to 11,342. — ' But the number of new admissions from 

San Francisco has remained stable. The Department of Cor- 
rections reports the following trend: 

12/ California Prisoners , Department of Corrections, 1979, 
1980. 



- 34 - 



Number of Felonies Received 

1978: 599 

1979: 526 

1980: 599 

(Source: California Prisoners 
Department of Corrections, 
1979, 1980) 

The Public Defender's Office has itself experienced such 

a decrease in state prison commitments among new or unadjudi- 

cated cases. 

Fiscal Year 1978-1979: 402 
Fiscal Year 1979-1980: 390 
Fiscal Year 1980-1981: 397 

We believe that a target of no more than 360 commitments 
from new or previously unadjudicated cases is realistic. With 
hard bargaining and good trial work, our attorneys can decrease 
state prison sentences, increase alternative sentencing acquit- 
tals and reduction of cases to misdemeanors. 

VI. MISDEMEANOR UNIT 

Program: To represent indigent defendants in misdemeanor 
cases and in motions to revoke probation in misdemeanor cases. 

Program cost : $540,243. 

This unit consists of a Head Trial Attorney, as supervisor 
and 15 attorneys in six departments of the Municipal Court. 
The emphasis of his unit is to provide real representation for 
the thousands of persons charged with crimes in the Municipal 

- 35 - 






Court. In years past this, frankly, did not exist. A 
special committee of the San Francisco Bar Association in 
October of 1974 wrote: 

"However the Public Defender does not 
act as a penal advocate for the defen- 
dant in the early steps of misdemeanor 
cases. He serves the court system, and 
only in part, the defendant." 

Those words were written at a time when most clients of the 
Public Defender pleaded guilty and pleaded guilty at their 
first appearances, without the benefit of an in-depth anal- 
ysis or an investigation of their case. The difference be- 
tween 1974 and today is dramatic. 

Of 8622 Public Defender cases in Fiscal Year 1980- 
1981 fewer than 10% pleaded guilty at the first appearance. 
Table I reveals a startling trend — over four years be- 
tween 1976 and 1980 the percentage of dismissals before trial 
consistently increased while the number of guilty pleas dropped. 

TABLE I 
Misdemeanors and Infractions — 1976-1980 





Arrests 


Dismissals 


Before Trial 


Guilty 


Pleas 


1976 


14,676 


3,804 


(26%) 


9,094 


(62%) 


1977 


17,773 


5,496 


(31%) 


10,454 


(59%) 


1978 


29,965 


18,165 


(62%) 


13,420 


(46%) 


1979 


22,946 


16,027 


(70%) 


8,828 


(38%) 


1980 


16,247 


8,474 


(53%) 


5,956 


(36%) 



(Source: Jail Overcrowding Committee, California 
Department of Justice.) 



- 36 - 



TABLE J 
Work of Misdemeanor Unit — Fiscal Year 1980-1981 

1. Number of Cases 

New Cases: 8,622 

Bench Warrant Cases: 4,366 

Motions To Revoke: 1,809 

2. Disposition of Cases 

Convicted: 4,629 

Dismissed: 3,404 

Dismissed through 1000 

et seq. , Penal Code 

diversion 13/ 1,198 

3. Trials 

Days In Other Guilty Guilty 

F.Y . No . Tria l Dispo . N.G . Hung ( Part ) ( Whole ) 

80-81 135 378 7 38 32 12 46 

79-80 88 273 - 30 18 13 27 

78-79 80 



4 . Comparison With Other Fiscal Years 
New Pleas of Diver. 



F.Y . Cases Guilty 

80-81 8,622 4,591 

79-80 8,395 3,560 

78-79 12,136 not.av. 



Dism. 


Diver. 


Return 


MTR 


3,404 


1,198 


3,798 


1,809 


3,433 


577 


2,520 


1,730 


not. av. 


not.av. 


not.av. 


not.av 



13 / The Diversion Program is one in which a defendant is referred 
to either drug programs or the Pretrial Diversion Project in 
lieu of contesting his/her case. If the person is eligible 
he/she is placed on a program of education, community service, 
etc. If the program is completed successfully, the charge is 
dismissed. 



37 - 



Charges Municipal Court 

Appendix B presents a complete breakdown of the charges 
in the misdemeanor departments of the Municipal Court. What 
is notable is the large numbers of prostitution (647b P.C), 
drunk driving (23102 V.C.) simple battery (242 P.C.) resis- 
ting arrest (148 P.C.) and petty theft (484 P.C.) This is where 
the brunt of misdemeanor prosecution is directed. 

MBQ Goals 

(1) To represent at least 8,500 new misdemeanor cases 
and 1,000 motions to revoke . 

Unless and until the District Attorney changes its charging 
policies/ we can expect the number of new cases to be at about 
8,500. During Fiscal Year 1978-1979 the number of new cases was 
slightly over 12,000. A change in screening practices, where 
the District Attorney filed fewer and stronger cases, caused a 
reduction of over 4,000 cases. The net effect of this reduction 
caused the number of cases dismissed before trial to decrease 
(see Table J) . 

However, the evidence is clear that the number of cases 
being filed is still too high. If approximately half of the 
cases are dismissed before trial, it follows that the system 
is overloaded with weak cases. 

As far as motions to revoke probation are concerned, there 
is every indication that over 1,000 and perhaps more will be 



- 38 - 



handled by this office. The plain fact is that there are 
thousands now on misdemeanor probation, and among those 
thousands, there is the likelihood of recurring trouble 
with the law. 

(2) To increase the number of jury trials by 10% or 
to a total of 120 . 

In Fiscal Year 1980-1981 we exceeded the figure of 120 
jury trials. We tried 132 — 47 more than the previous year. 
This reflects a conscious determination by the Head Attorneys 
Gary Faldesy and Joe Spaeth to get the misdemeanor lawyers to 
trial. Interestingly, the increase in jury trials did not 
result in damage to client interests. The percentage of 
convictions actually dropped. 

We will increase jury trials this year by another 10% 

(.3) To permit misdemeanor attorneys at least four 
opportunities per year to participate in a felony trial . 

Misdemeanor attorneys may try as many as 16 cases in a 
given year. This type of trial experience is important in 
the seasoning of a lawyer. But misdemeanor attorneys face 
misdemeanor prosecutors who are of limited experience. An 
important dimension of defender training is facing, and sur- 
viving against, prosecutors who are experienced and knowledge- 
able. With careful guidance, Deputy Public Defenders from 
the Misdemeanor Unit will participate in felony cases. They 
may work as co-counsel with an experienced lawyer or as counsel 
in a less serious felony. This experience strengthens their 
capacity to serve their misdemeanor clients. 

- 39 - 



4. To provide 20 hours of training per attorney 
We have stated earlier the importance we attach to train- 
ing. Fortunately we have been able to provide first rate 
training through the California Public Defender's Association 
and the Hastings College of Advocacy. In addition to these 
programs, Joe Speath holds seminars on topical themes in the 
law or on matters of practical interest. 

VII. JUVENILE UNIT 

Program : (1) To represent juveniles in delinquency cases 
and in cases where the District Attorney seeks to exclude juve- 
niles from the juvenile justice system; (2) To represent adults 
whose parental rights are being suspended or terminated. 

Program Cost : $438,905. 

The Public Defender's Office represents juvenile clients 
in the Juvenile Court at the Youth Guidance Center. Most of 
the Public Defender juvenile clients are charged with having 
committed offenses which, if the juveniles were adults, would 
be a crime. In these proceedings the District Attorney files 
a Petition pursuant to Section 602 of the Welfare and Institu- 
tions Code. The case is later heard before a referee or by a 
Superior Court Judge. 

The Public Defender also represents other juveniles who 
are alleged to have behavior problems. These juveniles are 
not charged with committing any acts which would be criminal 
in adult courts. Typically these are children who are charged 
with truancy, with curfew violations, or with being beyond 

- 40 - 



parental control. These are "status" offenders. Petitions 
pursuant to Section 601 of the Welfare and Institutions Code 
are filed in these cases. If these Petitions are granted, 
the child is taken out of the control of his or her parents. 

In certain criminal type cases the District Attorney 
will attempt to exclude a juvenile from the juvenile court 
process and to have the juvenile prosecuted as an adult 
in an adult criminal court (pursuant to Section 707 et seq. , 
Welfare and Institutions Code) . If that action is taken, 
the juvenile is entitled to a hearing on whether or not it 
is proper to have the juvenile tried as an adult. 

The Public Defender also represents parents in Juvenile 
Court where the Department of Social Services is attempting 
to suspend or to terminate the parents 1 custody over their 
children. 

The Public Defender is a forceful and a zealous advocate 
for the protection of the rights of the juvenile. Juvenile 
cases are adversary proceedings, and the attorney must use 
all of his talents in presenting the factual and the legal 
defenses on behalf of the juvenile client. At the same time, 
the Public Defender must also be sensitive to the special pro- 
blems confronting a juvenile offender. Juvenile law has become 
an entire specialty in itself. Attorneys in the juvenile 
courts must be able to identify emotional and educational dif- 
ficulties and to explore the alternatives which exist outside 



- 41 - 



of the legal system. The lawyers must utilize fully all of 
the communitybased agencies which provide social or psychi- 
atric assistance. 

Presently the Public Defender coordinates its acti- 
vities with such organizations as Real Alternatives, Youth 
for Service, and Rafiki Masaada. These are groups which pro- 
vide the special help needed by troubled minors. To address 
the special needs of the juvenile, the Public Defender also 
employs two social workers and a psychologist. The result of 
these approaches, and, in addition, because of the assistance 
of professional social workers and psychologists, has been 
to reduce the number of commitments of juveniles to the 
Youth Authority. 

TABLE K 
Juvenile Unit Work 

Overall the Juvenile Unit handled 2,418 Petitions. 14/ 

The Petitions were for the following: 

Section 601 W & I 

Section 602 W & I 

Section 707 W & I 

Section 300 W & I 
(parental neglect) 

2,475 





145 


2 


,118 




15 




197 



14/ Not included in this number are 154 cases of "transfer-in" 
juveniles . 



- 42 - 



TABLE L 
Fiscal Year Comparison 

1978-1979 1979-1980 1980-1981 

601 127 141 145 

602 2,119 2,410 2,118 
707 na 19 15 
300 225 325 197 



2,040 2,895 2,475 

2) Commitments to CYA 

Fiscal Year 1978-1979: 96 
Fiscal Year 1979-1980: 81 
Fiscal Year 1980-1981: 89 

3) Commitments to Log Cabin Ranch 

Fiscal Year 1979-1980: 136 
Fiscal Year 1980-1981: 95 

MBO Goals 

1. To represent juveniles in at least 2,200 cases 
petitioned under 601, 602, and 707 of the Welfare and Insti - 
tutions Code, and 300 adults in Section 300 Welfare and Insti - 
tutions Code Proceedings . 

According to Table L the caseload at the Juvenile 
Unit has not changed dramatically during the last three fis- 
cal years. We expect the level of work to remain the same. 



- 43 - 



But there is possibly one factor that might affect the work- 
load. Judge Low, the Juvenile Judge, has been bringing truants 
to court and reviewing their probation. This may increase the 
number of cases. 

2. To utilize the social work staff in at least 225 
delinquency cases . 

The Unit employs a part-time psychologist and two full- 
time social workers. The three persons interview clients, 
render evaluations, and in many cases provide dispositional 
plans. They do this work in 601, 602, and 707 cases. Mr. 
Bonfilio feels that their work has been successful in reducing 
Log Cabin and CYA commitments and in persuading the Court not 
to exclude the juvenile from the juvenile system. 

The psychologist and the social worker have an impor- 
tant advantage: the information is conveyed within the set- 
ting of the lawyer-client relationship. By making the 
meaning of that fact known to the juvenile, the juvenile is 
more likely to be candid about his/her problems. The eval- 
uations do not suffer from a defensive-minded and timid per- 
son, who is unsure whether his/her statements will be ulti- 
mately used against him/her. The psychologist or the social 
worker does not spend wasted time parrying an evasive or 
taciturn subject. 

We feel that the program has been successful in reduc- 
ing recidivism and needless incarceration. 



- 44 - 



3. To involve community-based agency participation 
in 350 juvenile cases . 

There exists a rich network of community based agencies, 
many existing on private funding, others on public and quasi- 
public funding. They have trained counselors and instructors 
and serve specialized clientele, i.e., Hispanic youth in the 
Mission by Real Alternatives. Currently we make great use 
of these programs; we wish to increase their involvement. 

VIII. MENTAL HEALTH UNIT 

Program : To represent the mentally ill in conservator- 
ship proceedings, to represent the retarded in proceedings 
relating to their treatment and placement, to represent the 
insane in proceedings for the restoration of their sanity, 
to represent those adjudged mentally-disordered sex offenders 
in proceedings relating to their placement and treatment. 

Program Cost : $226,636 

The Public Defender is the principal attorney in the 
community for the mentally ill. Most of the work of the 
Mental Health Unit is done in the defense of petitions to 
establish mental health conservatorships pursuant to Section 
5500 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. This conservator- 
ship petition is the legal procedure for establishing judi- 
cial control over a person who is alleged to be a danger to 
himself or others or who is gravely disabled to the extent of 
lacking the ability to provide food, shelter, and care for 
himself /herself . If the petition is granted an individual 

- 45 - 






may be placed in a state hospital or in a local facility, 
whichever the Court deems appropriate. 

In these cases the Public Defender is appointed to re- 
present the proposed conservatee. As the attorney for the pro- 
posed conservatee, the Public Defender must review the medical 
reports, witnesses, and explore alternative placement if the 
client contests the hearing. 

The Public Defender also represents persons in pro- 
bate guardianships pursuant to Section 1470 et seq. These 
proceedings are of three kinds: (1) for persons not parti- 
cularly a danger to themselves, but who have handicaps such 
as epilepsy, autism, or mental retardation, who need assis- 
tance but who are not disabled to an extent that would war- 
rant a mental health commitment under Section 5500 et seq. , 
Welfare and Institutions Code; (2) persons who are under men- 
tal health commitments who need guardian control of their 
property; (3) other persons who have property and are unable 
to care for their property. 

Until Brown v. Superior Court , 119 Cal.App.3d 189 (1981), 
the Public Defender represented probate conservatees irrespec- 
tive of the ability of the estate to defray the costs of counsel 
But that decision, in effect, stated that the ability of the 
estate to pay for counsel for the conservatee had to be consi- 
dered before the Public Defender could be appointed. This de- 
cision will mean that the taxpayer will not represent conser- 
vatees whose guardianships have substantial assets. 



- 46 - 



The Mental Health Unit also represents mentally ill 
clients who have been sent to state hospitals. These involve 
conservatees committed under Section 5500 Welfare and Insti- 
tutions Code who have a right to periodic review of their 
status and their treatment, clients who have been found in- 
competent to stand trial under Sections 1368-70 of the Penal 
Code, those who have been found not guilty by reason of 
insanity under Section 1027 of the Penal Code, mentally 
disordered sex offenders pursuant to Section 6300 of the 
Welfare and Institutions Code, and mentally retarded dan- 
gerous persons under Section 6500 Welfare and Institutions 
Code. 

These clients must be regularly visited and interviewed. 
If the state hospital makes an inappropriate recommendation 
for a patient, the Public Defender must bring that fact to 
the attention of the Court. If it is necessary a jury trial 
may be held to determine whether or not a person should be 
kept in a state hospital or whether or not his/her parole 
should be revoked. 



- 47 - 



TABLE M 
Summary of Mental Health Unit's Work 

Statistical Summary 

Conservatorship Hearings pursuant to 

5500 W & I C (new) 609 

Conservatorship Hearings pursuant to 

4400 W & I C (renewed) 436 

Writs of Habeas Corpus 196 

Probate Guardianships 47 

90-Day Certification (dangerous 

persons) 8 

6500 W & I C (Dangerous retarded) 21 

Special Placement Hearings 57 

Criminal Cases 21 



Total Cases 1,387 

TABLE N 
D isposition of Mental Health Cases 

1. Writs of Habeas Corpus : 

Granted: 34 

Denied: 78 

Withdrawn: 84 

196 

2. 5500 W & I Conservatorships (new) 

Granted: 18 3 

Denied: 426 

609 



- 48 - 



3. 5500 W & I Conservatorships (re-newed) 

Granted: 270 

Terminated: 166 

436 

4. 90-Day Certifications 
(dangerous persons) 



5. 



Granted: 


3 


Denied: 


3 


Withdrawn 


2 




8 


6500 Petitions 




Granted: 


6 


Terminated: 


1 


Denied: 


2 


Other : 


4 




13 



TABLE O 

Comparison Between Fiscal Year 1979-1980 and 1980-1981 

For Mental Health Unit 

Fiscal Year 
1980-1981 

Writs of Habeas Corpus 196 

LPS Conservatorships 609 

LPS Renewals 436 

6500 Placements 21 

Criminal Cases 21 

Probate Cases 47 

Placement Hearings 57 

Total Cases 1,387 1,466 

Interviews to advise 

persons of legal rights 

on 14 certifications 1,726 1,212 

- 49 - 



Fiscal Year 


1979-1980 


216 


577 


561 


8 


37 


41 


36 



IX. RESEARCH UNIT 

Program : To prepare writs and appeals, legal memo- 
randa in complex cases; to provide research for cases in 
litigation; to provide technical assistance in writs and 
appeals. 

Program Cost : $103,008 

The newest administrative component of the Public 
Defender's Office is the Research Unit. It is located 
in the Public Defender library. One attorney, Grace 
Suarez, and four paralegals work there. The unit writes 
briefs for writs and appeals, researches the law for 
cases in trial, and provides technical assistance to at- 
torneys in the preparation and filing of pleadings. 

The unit has a small library. It has an indexed brief 
bank, a collection of jury research material, and a micro- 
fiche file which contains cases of the State Public Defender 
The unit also has a LEXIS Computer Terminal which produces 
legal citations upon inquiry and summaries of cases. 

The value of the unit cannot be overstated. Its work 
has enabled the office to generate on an average of 8 ap- 
pellate briefs a month in writs and appeals. The special- 
ization of the research function in the office permits 
the trial attorneys to devote undivided attention to the 
factual presentation of the case. It places the burden 
of research on a group of lawyers and paralegals who are 
thoroughly familiar with changes in the law. 

- 50 - 



MBQ Goals 

1) T o produce 360 documents (briefs , motions , writs ) 
a year and to increase the standardized documents on file 
by 15% . 

Last year the Public Defender's Office produced a 
total of 101 writs and appeals. We are confident that 
this number can be increased by 15 to 20 and that the 
unit can assist in the production of another 240 to 250 
legal pleadings. 

2. To reduce preparation time for briefs and 
motions. 



Current Average Time 



a. 


Appeals 


15 


days 


average 


b. 


Writs 


5 


days 


average 


c. 


Motions 


10 


days 


average 


d. 


Memos 


3 


days 


average 



- 51 - 






X. INVESTIGATION UNIT 

Program ; To obtain information about the facts and 
circumstances of the cases of clients represented by the 
Public Defender and to provide necessary support services 
to attorneys in the office in furtherance of the represen- 
tation of those cases. 

Program Cost : $230,739 

In the 1976 Report of the National Commission on De- 
fense Services, the following statement was made: 

"Criminal investigation is an essential 
element of criminal defense. Offices lacking 
adequate investigative staff tend to neglect 
the investigative function and rely on the 
state's version of witness statements and 
other evidence. It is not cost-effective 
for lawyers to do all of the investigation 
connected with a case. Moreover, where law- 
yers conduct investigations, it may be neces- 
sary to have an investigator along to refute 
charges of impropriety and to have a witness 
who can testify at trial if necessary. 

Secondly, since investigation is increa- 
singly becoming a professional skill requiring 
professional expertise, investigators s"hould be 
hired who have the professional skills required. 
Professional investigators greatly improve the 
overall quality of service in a defender office. 

In order to ensure that investigations are 
conducted in every case where there is a factual 
question not subject to objective determination, 
an adequate attorney-investigator ratio is neces- 
sary. At least one investigator should be em- 
ployed for every three staff attorneys. This fig- 
ure is based upon the experience of defenders from 
coast to coast." (At p. 333.) 

The Public Defender's Office has had an investigative 

staff since 1955. But until 1977 the staff was small. In 



- 52 - 



1977 Public Defender Bob Nicco acquired 12 additional 
investigators funded through C.E.T.A. Between 1978 and 
1980 this number gradually decreased with the scaling 
down and eventual elimination of C.E.T.A. However this 
year the Mayor's Crime Package provided the office with 
11 new temporary investigative positions in addition to 
the five permanent investigators. Although the ratio of 
attorneys to investigators is not the 3-1 recommended 
by the National Commission (supra) , we feel we can meet 
the investigation demands of the office. 

The Investigative Unit is supervised by Chief Inves- 
tigator Harry Guyton. The Unit is located across the 
street from the Hall of Justice at 38 Boardman Place. In 
addition to five permanent investigators, and ten temporary 
ones, there are two support personnel. 

An investigation commences when an attorney makes a 
written request. The request may ask that a witness be 
located and interviewed, that the crime scene be photo- 
graphed, or that a document be located. A suspense date 
is set for the completion of the investigation. Supple- 
mentary requests may be made. The same investigator will 
be assigned to the case throughout the life of the case. 

Good investigation is absolutely invaluable to effec- 
tive representation. It can win the case for the lawyer. 
It can provide exculpatory evidence; it can find contra- 
diction in the prosecutor's case. It requires persistence, 



- 53 - 



ingenuity, and a knowledge of crime. The major emphasis 
of this office will be directed toward improved investi- 
gation as a means of delivering better legal service* 



Fiscal Year 


Cases 


Comparisons 


Investigated 


1978-1979 


1,903 


1979-1980 


1,107 


1980-1981 


1,583 



MBO Goals 

1) To investigate at least 1,100 cases . This goal 
is probably too modest. During Fiscal Year 1980-1981 the 
unit investigated over 1,500 cases. This was up from 1,107 
and less than the number in Fiscal Year 1978-1979. The 
fewer number of requests in 1979-1980 probably reflected 
the loss of C.E.T. A. -funded investigators. Lawyers aware 
of this cut-back were less likely to submit requests, know- 
ing that the unit could not satisfy all of them. 

2) To cut response time . Investigation must be 
completed in a timely fashion. Subpoenas must be served 
promptly. With the new personnel we are confident that 
the demand for prompt investigation can be met. 

3) To provide 32 hours of training per year per 
investigator . Criminology is a field of expanding knowledge 
New information about fingerprints, blood serology, stress 
analysis, and eye-witness identification is emerging almost 
daily. A professional defense to a criminal case requires 



- 54 - 



a knowledgable investigator who is aware of new techni- 
ques and modern criminology. Consequently, this office 
must undertake a continuous re-education of its investi- 
gative staff. 



- 55 - 



XI. OTHER MATTERS OF INTEREST 



1. Affirmative Action 



The Public Defender's Office exists in a multi-racial 
and multi-cultural community. Its clientele is largely of 
Third-World origin. As an office that is in the midst of 
the struggle for human rights, the Public Defender's Office 
must be an example of equal opportunity for individuals of 
different races, sexes, and sexual preferences. Moreover, 
the presence of persons of all races, sexes, and sexual 
preferences gives the Public Defender the benefit of diverse 
backgrounds, languages, and cultures, and it better equips 
this office to understand and communicate with different 
peoples who make up the clientele of this office. 

We have submitted to the Civil Service Commission an 
affirmative action plan which sets forth targets for in- 
creased participation at all levels of employment of minor- 
ities, women, and gay/lesbian peoples. At a minimum we 
seek to employ a representative number of people of such 
backgrounds as is proportionate to the general population 
of the city. In certain situations, where a high percentage 
of our clientele is from such a defined minority, we will 
hire persons from such minorities in excess of the percen- 
tage of that group in the City's general population. 

Since 1979 we have made aggressive efforts to select, 
retain, and promote women, minorities and gay persons, espe- 
cially in the higher-salaried classifications. As a conse- 



56 - 



quence, nearly one-half of our attorney staff is female, 
nearly 40% is Third-World, and there are seven out-front 
gay and lesbian attorneys. For the first time in the his- 
tory of this office, the Investigative Unit is staffed with 
Third World men and women. 

The effort must continue. We have a great need for 
Chinese and Spanish speaking attorneys. We have a distance 
to go before this office is truly reflective of our City. 
But we will succeed. 

2. Relations With District Attorney 

Our relationship with the District Attorney can stand 
some improvement. Last year, a series of courtroom and pub- 
lic policy battles resulted in personal hurt feelings on 
both sides. A certain amount of conflict in and out of the 
courtroom is inevitable, but there is a need for a working 
relationship at the leadership level of each office. Both 
offices have a mutual interest in an improved administra- 
tion of criminal justice, in greater office facilities, in 
computerization of court information. A major effort will 
be made during Fiscal Year 1981-1982 to create a better 
working relationship. 

3. Law Student Program 

The University of San Francisco Law School has a pro- 
gram in which third-year law students handle Public Defender 



- 57 - 



cases in court under the supervision of two attorneys from 
the Law School faculty. This is the second year the program 
has been in operation. It has been an unqualified success. 
Under the direction of Freya Home and Harold Rosenthal 
the law students have represented Public Defender clients 
in misdemeanor trials and in preliminary hearings. In one 
of those trials last year the jury found the defendant not 
guilty. 

The students also worked with the attorneys of the 
office in interviewing witnesses, providing legal research, 
and drafting legal pleadings. 

Last year the money for rent and equipment was donated 
by the San Francisco Bar Foundation and the San Francisco 
Foundation. There are grant requests pending for renewal. 

4 . Volunteer Lawyers 

The Public Defender's Office benefits from the parti- 
cipation of volunteer lawyers such as Mark Penksar and Pat 
Finley from the distinguished firm of Pillsbury, Madison 
and Sutro. The attorneys are experienced practitioners 
from the firm's litigation department. They work on a daily 
basis as Deputy Public Defenders for a specified period of 
time. They have been consistently outstanding. 

Herb Donaldson, an experienced and skilled practitioner, 
devoted six months full-time to our office free of compen- 
sation. His work was superb. 



- 58 - 



5. Removal From The Hall Of Justice 

The Public Defender's Office at the Hall of Justice 
houses nearly 10 employees. These employees work within 
5,500 square feet — a space originally designed for about 
25 people. Needless to say the condition is totally in- 
tolerable. No attorney with the exception of the Public 
Defender and the Chief Attorney, has a private office. In 
Room 208, 20 attorneys are crowded within 500 square feet. 
Clients must be interviewed without privacy in an atmos- 
phere that is noisy and dingy. In the individual offices 
in Room 20 5 two, three, and five lawyers are crammed into 
a space of about 25 square feet. Unfortunately the entire 
Hall of Justice is overcrowded. There is no available 
space. 

The squalor of work environment is an affront to the 
professional dignity of the attorneys of this office. Worse 
still it is an affront to the humanity of our clientele. No 
client can feel good about his or her representation when he 
or she is interviewed amidst the noisy din of ringing tele- 
phones, within the earshot of ten, twenty, or thirty people, 
in quarters of over-filled trash cans and boxes of closed 
files. 

Finally, this work environment militates against the 
indispensable ingredient to any decent lawyer-client rela- 
tionship: candor. Can we expect clients to speak of the 
most private facts of their life in such a setting? Surely 
we cannot. 

- 59 - 



Aside from the issue of overcrowding, Public Defender 
offices should not be located in buildings like the Hall 
of Justice. A law office cannot inspire the respect and 
confidence of its clients when clients, their family, 
friends and prospective witnesses must pass through a 
metal detector and be subject to search in order to confer 
with an attorney. Minimum standards set forth by the Nati- 
onal Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and 
Goals (Standard 13:13:2) mandate the removal of Public 
Defender law offices from police-court complexes. 

During Fiscal Year 1981-1982 we will make a maximum 
effort to move out of the Hall of Justice. 



- 60 - 



APPENDIX 


A 


NUMBER 


PENAL CODE 


CASES 


SECTION 


4 
1 
2 
1 
41 
7 
8 


664/187 

664/211 

664/459 

664/487.1 

664/487.2 

664/10851 

653 


4 


666 


4 


667 


6 


1319.4 


1 


4379 


258 

7 


4390 
4532 


3 


4573 


3 


12020 


1 


12021 


18 


12025b 


226 
10 


12303.2 
12560 


7 
5 


VEHICLE CODE 


17 


SECTION 


4 
7 


10851 


1 


23101 


2 


20001a 


36 
3 


W. & I. CODE 


2 


SECTION 


5 
3 


11483a 


1 
6 


H. & S. CODE 


8 


SECTION 


1 
2 


11350 


1 


11351 


445 

20 

1 


11352 
11355 
11357 


17 
4 


11359 
11360 


5 


11366 


12 

5 


11368 
11377 


48 

60 

8 


11378 
11379 
11382 


41 
1 


11375 
11500 


1 


11550 


4 




2 





NUMBER 
CASES 

4 
36 
20 

2 

9 

1 

1 
17 

1 

1 

1 

2 

5 

2 
19 
51 
11 

1 

1 

NUMBER 
CASES 

77 

1 

NUMBER 
CASES 



NUMBER 
CASES 

62 
46 
23 

2 

9 
30 
10 

2 

1 
62 
39 
22 

1 

1 

1 

1 



- fil - 







APPENDIX B 








MISDEMEANOR CHARGES 




PENAL CODE 


NUMBER OF 


PLEAD 


SECTION 


CASES 


GUILTY 


148 




991 


80 


242 




1227 


146 


243 




312 


19 


245 




313 


30 


314 




62 


2 


315 




28 


3 


318 




61 


3 


374 




29 


6 


415 




395 


185 


417 




237 


38 


459 




225 


44 


466 




101 


14 


487 




294 


64 


488 




1086 


286 


537 




158 


25 


594 




698 


105 


602 




356 


60 


647A 




241 


17 


647B 




954 


252 


647F 




1073 


208 


666 




177 


78 


12020 




166 


35 


12025 




116 


32 


12031 




121 


35 


20A 


MPC 








20.G 


MPC 


1 


1 


21 


MPC 


74 


16 


291 


MPC 


200 


37 


1208 


MPC 








1140 


MPC 


17 




4143 


BP 


266 


54 


25661 


BP 


3 


3 


25660 


BP 


2 




11350 


HS 


62 


2 


11357 


HS 


890 


134 


11360 


HS 


144 


14 


11377 


HS 


196 


3 


11550 


HS 


37 


3 


10851 


VC 


146 


17 


10852 


VC 


168 


38 


17 601 


VC 


535 


214 


20002 


VC 


595 


118 


23101 


vc 


14 


7 


23102 


VC 


1751 


876 


23103 


VC 


322 


219 


2101 


UI 


76 


15 


12951 


VC 


1008 


20 



- 62 - 



71